Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya engage in conversation during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on July 13, 2023. President Trump dismissed both on March 18.
Shuran Huang/The Washington Post via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Shuran Huang/The Washington Post via Getty Images
President Trump’s dismissal this week of two Democratic Federal Trade Commission members sparked renewed outrage among critics who believe this reflects a misuse of power, coupled with the White House’s continued claim that the president can dismiss such officials at his discretion.
Trump’s past removals of Democratic officials from the Merit Systems Protection Board, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and other independent agencies have already been contested in federal court.
It seems inevitable that one such case will ascend to the Supreme Court soon. Various cases are making their way through the legal system with the fired FTC commissioners committed to filing their own lawsuit.
Individuals removed from independent agencies by Trump
Jan. 27
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Democratic Commissioners Charlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels have yet to challenge their dismissals.
National Labor Relations Board
Democratic board member Gwynne Wilcox had her position reinstated by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, but the D.C. Circuit is considering the administration’s appeal.
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Democratic members Travis LeBlanc and Edward Felten have initiated challenges concerning their dismissals. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton has scheduled a hearing for April 30. Trump also removed Democratic Chair Sharon Bradford Franklin, although she did not contest her dismissal.
Feb. 7
Office of Special Counsel
Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger was reinstated by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson but removed again by the D.C. Circuit. Dellinger ceased his legal battle on March 6.
Feb. 10
Merit Systems Protection Board
Democratic member Cathy Harris was reinstated by U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, while the D.C. Circuit is deliberating the administration’s appeal.
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Democratic Chair Susan Tsui Grundmann was reinstated by U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan.
March 18
Federal Trade Commission
Democratic Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya have stated their intention to contest their dismissals.
White House prepares for possible Supreme Court battle
When questioned about the terminations of FTC Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt remarked on Wednesday that “the timing was appropriate for these dismissals,” and added that the administration is prepared “to pursue this all the way to the Supreme Court.”
On Thursday, a coalition of lawmakers, including Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar and Dick Durbin, urged Trump to reverse the FTC terminations.
“Such actions violate established Supreme Court precedents, threaten Congress’s constitutional responsibilities to create bipartisan, independent commissions, and disrupt over 110 years of efforts by the FTC to protect consumers from deceptive practices and monopolistic behaviors,” stated their letter, which garnered 28 senator signatures.
More than 50 independent agencies and government corporations comprise the executive branch, many of which have historically functioned with a level of autonomy given by Congress.
The framework of these agencies often includes members from both political parties serving staggered terms, which helps preserve independence from the White House’s influence. The officials Trump has sought to dismiss since January typically had significant time remaining in their terms. In some circumstances, such dismissals have resulted in boards comprised entirely of Republican members.
A 90-year-old Supreme Court ruling safeguards commissioners
The dismissals raise the question of whether the Supreme Court case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, should continue to be upheld. In 1935, the court unanimously confirmed that Congress requires presidents to have just cause, such as inefficiency, malfeasance, or neglect of duty, when dismissing members of independent boards or commissions.
This case involved a conservative FTC member who President Franklin D. Roosevelt believed was obstructing his New Deal initiatives. William Humphrey passed away shortly after Roosevelt dismissed him, leading his executor to sue the government successfully.
The Federal Trade Commission building located in Washington, D.C.
Paul J. Richards/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Paul J. Richards/AFP via Getty Images
However, the current conservative supermajority in the Supreme Court has been eroding this precedent, implying that the Trump administration might succeed if the matter comes before the court.
The Justice Department argues that the restrictions set by Humphrey’s Executor are not applicable to today’s FTC or similar multimember regulatory agencies due to the significant power wielded by those entities.
In February, acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris sent a letter to Durbin, the leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicating that these commissions, in their current structure, wield considerable executive power, including rulemaking and unilateral decisions.
“An independent agency of this nature has ‘no basis in history and no place in our constitutional framework,'” Harris wrote, referencing a recent Supreme Court decision that allowed the president to remove the single director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without cause. “To the extent that Humphrey’s Executor requires otherwise, the Department intends to support a Supreme Court ruling to overturn that decision, which prevents the President from properly supervising principal officers within the Executive Branch who execute the laws on his behalf.”
In the CFPB case, the court confined its ruling to agencies with a singular director. However, the Justice Department believes that the removal restrictions at agencies with multiple members are also unconstitutional.
Independent agencies serve the public interest
While not all independent agencies are household names, their work impacts the daily lives of Americans in numerous ways.
For instance, the FTC looks into unfair or deceptive business practices like price-fixing and the imposition of noncompete agreements by employers, while it assesses mergers to ensure they don’t restrict consumer options.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigates worker discrimination complaints. The National Labor Relations Board resolves conflicts between employers and workers who unite in pursuit of better wages and working conditions. The Merit Systems Protection Board reviews cases involving federal employees who feel that they have been wronged by the government.
“These agencies must function independently to effectively serve the American public rather than become instruments for political loyalty,” states Jared Davidson, counsel for the nonprofit legal advocacy group Protect Democracy, which seeks to combat authoritarianism.
Bedoya, one of the recently removed FTC commissioners, cautioned that billionaires like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, who all attended Trump’s inauguration, stand to gain from his and Slaughter’s removal.
“I am currently litigating or enforcing court orders against each of their firms,” Bedoya mentioned in an interview on NPR’s Morning Edition, adding that the Republican commissioners still at the FTC could revoke any ongoing actions.
Guests including Meta’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s founder Jeff Bezos, Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai, and Elon Musk during President Trump’s inauguration at the U.S. Capitol on January 20.
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AFP via Getty Images
Serious concerns about overturning ninety years of legal precedent
As legal challenges advance to the Supreme Court, some legal experts and scholars are sounding alarms regarding the repercussions of overturning Humphrey’s Executor.
“It would pose a substantial threat to the American populace if the court grants the president unchecked authority to disregard clear Congressional mandates and transform these independent agencies into mere extensions of political favor,” warns Davidson.
If the Supreme Court were to overturn Humphrey’s Executor, he cautions that it would pave the way for Trump to dismiss members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors if he disagreed with their policies or wanted them to pursue specific actions, potentially destabilizing the economy.
It’s a concern echoed by a group of law professors in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court.
Referencing a law review article by Harvard Law professor and former Fed governor Daniel Tarullo, they note that the Fed “would obviously be among the many agencies whose legality would come into question.”
“The functioning of the Federal Reserve is critical for the stability of the American economy,” warn the professors. “Concerns—justifiable or not—that its operations could be disrupted might breed financial and political instability, resulting in long-term damage.”
In another brief submitted in a different case, the law professors provided a chilling illustration of how the Fed’s operations might be interrupted.
“Political leaders seeking re-election might opt for short-term economic enhancements over sustained price stability. For instance, a president could desire a decrease in unemployment and a surge in economic activity leading up to elections,” they explained. “A more accommodating monetary policy could bring about those results, but would also elevate the threat of heightened inflation in the future.”
Following the Fed’s decision to maintain interest rates on Wednesday, Trump posted a comment on social media evaluating that choice.
“The Fed would perform much better by CUTTING RATES as U.S. Tariffs begin to transition (ease!) into the economy. Act accordingly,” he wrote on Truth Social.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell, appointed by Trump in 2018, has stated that he and his colleagues are guided strictly by economic principles in their decisions. During Trump’s first term, Powell displayed his willingness to disregard Trump’s critiques, asserting last November that he would not resign even if Trump demanded it. Powell’s term extends to 2026 but could be renewed.
Bedoya suggested to NPR that Trump might take that decision regarding Powell if Humphrey’s Executor were to be overturned.
“People should understand that if I can be dismissed for any reason at any moment, so can Jerome Powell at the Fed,” stated Bedoya. “This situation affects not just small businesses and consumers; it extends to retirees and investors and their savings in the stock market.”
Editor’s note:Amazon is among NPR’s recent financial contributors.
If you have information regarding ongoing transformations within the federal government, NPR’s Andrea Hsu can be reached through encrypted communication on Signal at andreahsu.08.
Bengali (Bangladesh) · 
English (United States) ·