Supreme Court Sides With Trump in Landmark FTC Showdown, Sets Stage for Bigger Constitutional Battle

In a ruling that could reshape the balance of power between the White House and independent federal agencies, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted President Donald Trump the authority to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter — a move that ends months of legal wrangling and signals a potential rollback of long-standing restrictions on presidential control over regulatory bodies.

The 6–3 decision marks a major victory for Trump, who has been seeking to dismiss Slaughter, a Democratic appointee of former President Joe Biden, since March. The ruling effectively removes the final Democratic voice from the five-member FTC and strengthens the administration’s grip on economic and antitrust policy.

The court’s decision also sets up a broader constitutional showdown later this year, as the justices agreed to hear arguments on whether presidents have unrestricted power to remove FTC commissioners “at will,” a question that could redefine the independence of numerous federal agencies.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter in the decision, which overturned a lower court’s injunction preventing Slaughter’s removal. Chief Justice John Roberts had earlier issued an emergency stay in Trump’s favor, temporarily blocking her reinstatement pending a full hearing.

Slaughter’s seven-year term, originally slated to expire in 2029, was one of the last remnants of Biden’s regulatory influence at the FTC. She and fellow Democrat Alvaro Bedoya were both dismissed in March, but only Slaughter pursued legal action, arguing that her removal violated the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which held that presidents cannot fire FTC commissioners without cause.

However, Trump’s legal team, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that this precedent “improperly restrains executive authority” and that the president must have the power to remove officials who wield significant policy influence.

“The president and the government suffer irreparable harm when courts transfer even some of that executive power to officers beyond the President’s control,” Sauer told the justices.

The Supreme Court majority agreed, with the opinion noting that the executive branch cannot be forced to maintain appointees who act contrary to the president’s policy objectives. Legal observers say the decision could pave the way for the Court to narrow — or potentially overturn — Humphrey’s Executor, a nearly century-old case that has long shielded independent regulatory agencies from direct political oversight.

The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments on that broader issue in December, a case expected to have sweeping implications for agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Communications Commission.

While the FTC case dominated headlines, the high court also delivered another significant ruling last week — one that further underscored the conservative majority’s willingness to challenge progressive environmental regulations.

In a 7–2 decision, the Court allowed California energy producers to move forward with a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), questioning the legality of the state’s aggressive green energy mandates.

At the center of the dispute is California’s plan to require all new car sales to be electric vehicles by 2035, part of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s effort to achieve “carbon neutrality.” Energy companies argue that the EPA unlawfully approved the state’s plan under the Clean Air Act, effectively allowing California to dictate national energy standards.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the EPA’s approval and criticized the agency’s inconsistent positions on whether federal law authorizes such regulations.

“The government may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade resulting lawsuits by claiming the targets should be locked out of court,” Kavanaugh wrote.

He added that California’s mandates, backed by EPA approval, could represent a “massive overreach” of both state and federal power, raising constitutional concerns about unequal treatment among the states.

The ruling was hailed as a major victory for U.S. fuel producers and a setback for California’s environmental agenda. Chet Thompson, president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the group leading the lawsuit, said the decision was a long-overdue correction.

“Congress did not grant California special authority to regulate greenhouse gases, mandate electric vehicles, or ban new gas-powered cars,” Thompson said. “The state has been twisting the law to advance a political agenda, and the Court’s ruling restores some balance.”

The decision follows Trump’s own executive actions earlier this month, when he signed multiple resolutions overturning key elements of California’s environmental policies — a direct blow to Gov. Newsom, who has positioned himself as a leading Democratic voice on climate change and a potential 2028 presidential contender.

Combined, the two Supreme Court rulings — one on the FTC and the other on environmental regulation — underscore a broader realignment of power in Washington. The conservative majority appears intent on reasserting presidential authority and curbing the reach of unelected regulatory bodies that have long shaped national policy.

For Trump, the outcomes represent both a legal and political triumph, reinforcing his campaign promise to “dismantle the administrative state.” For Democrats, the decisions serve as a warning that decades of institutional precedent are being reexamined — and potentially undone — under a court that shows no hesitation to rewrite the limits of government power.