The Supreme Court just handed President Trump a significant win in his battle to rein in the bureaucratic beast.
Breitbart reported that on Monday, the Court issued an emergency order allowing Trump to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democrat who’s been a thorn in the side of his administration.
The crux of this story is simple: Trump moved to oust Slaughter earlier this year, the Supreme Court cleared the path with its order, and now it’s set to hear arguments in December on the broader constitutional questions surrounding White House control over regulatory bodies.
Let’s rewind to the beginning—Trump’s decision to remove Slaughter wasn’t a whim; it was a calculated stand against statutory protections that he argues undermine his constitutional duty to ensure laws are faithfully executed.
These protections, often seen as a shield for unelected bureaucrats, have long frustrated conservatives who believe the president, as the elected leader, should have more direct say over policy execution.
This case, titled Trump v. Slaughter, isn’t just a personnel spat—it’s a direct challenge to a 1935 ruling, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld Congress’s ability to limit presidential removal of commissioners for policy disagreements.
That New Deal-era decision has been a sacred cow for progressives, but critics rightly point out it’s birthed an unaccountable “fourth branch” of government. If you ask me, it’s high time we rethink rules that let regulators thumb their noses at democratic accountability.
The FTC itself is a prime example of this insulated structure, with staggered terms and partisan balance requirements designed to curb presidential influence.
While some argue this setup ensures impartiality, others see it as a recipe for gridlock and resistance to the will of the electorate. After all, shouldn’t the person voters chose have the reins over consumer protection and antitrust enforcement?
In its emergency order, the Supreme Court didn’t just side with Trump for now—it signaled a willingness to tackle the bigger question of whether these removal protections improperly tie the president’s hands. The Court will also weigh if judges can even block a president from firing an agency official. This could be a game-changer for how power flows in Washington.
Not everyone on the bench was thrilled with this move, as Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the majority’s order.
Kagan’s quip, “Until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls,” suggests a stubborn cling to precedent over principle. With all due respect to the Justice, isn’t it worth asking if a nearly century-old ruling still fits a modern government drowning in regulatory overreach?
Supporters of the Court’s action argue this isn’t about power grabs—it’s about clarity in our constitutional framework. They contend that aligning authority with the elected president ensures accountability to the people, not to unelected officials who can outlast administrations. It’s a compelling point in an era where regulatory policy often feels like it’s on autopilot.
Critics of Humphrey’s Executor have long warned that independent agencies weaken the democratic process by insulating decision-makers from electoral consequences.
If the president can’t steer the ship on key issues like antitrust rules, who’s really in charge? This case could finally tip the scales back toward voter-driven governance.
The December arguments promise to be a heavyweight bout, as the Supreme Court will dive into whether these statutory shields for commissioners clash with the president’s constitutional role.
This isn’t the first time the Court has allowed presidential removals despite contrary laws, and it’s part of a broader push to recalibrate executive power. The stakes couldn’t be higher for how we define “independent” in government.
For conservatives, this is a golden opportunity to dismantle a relic of progressive overreach from the 1930s. While respecting the intent behind balanced agencies, it’s hard to ignore how often they become fiefdoms for entrenched interests rather than servants of the public good. Let’s hope the Court sees the wisdom in restoring proper oversight.
The FTC, tasked with enforcing consumer protections and antitrust laws, shouldn’t be a walled garden immune to executive direction.
If Trump’s move to remove Slaughter holds under scrutiny, it could signal a broader shift toward ensuring agencies answer to the people’s choice at the ballot box. That’s not authoritarian—it’s democratic.
As we await the December showdown, it’s clear this case transcends one commissioner or one agency. It’s about whether the Constitution’s design—where the president holds executive power—can withstand decades of legislative tinkering meant to dilute that authority. The outcome could reshape the regulatory landscape for generations.
