Particle.news
Download on the App Store

Conservative Justices Show Strains in Trump v. Slaughter Over Presidential Power to Fire Regulators

An analysis of the December arguments reports visible reservations about sweeping removal power.

Overview

  • Trump v. Slaughter arises from President Trump’s dismissal without cause of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, challenging statutory protections for independent commission members.
  • The Justice Department urged the Court to discard Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 precedent that undergirds for-cause removal protections at roughly two dozen multimember agencies.
  • Chief Justice John Roberts referred to Humphrey’s Executor as “a dried husk” during oral argument, a remark widely read as openness to curtailing the precedent.
  • The New Republic’s account highlighted confusion and differences among conservative justices, noting Justice Amy Coney Barrett floated a result without a clear constitutional rationale that drew no evident support.
  • The session, as described in the analysis, leaned on policy critiques of independent agencies rather than constitutional text or founding-era design, raising warnings of proliferating lawsuits and regulatory gridlock if the Court broadens presidential removal power.