A federal appeals court on Tuesday, September 2, blocked President Donald Trump from firing Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, dealing a significant blow to the administration’s efforts to reshape independent agencies. In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Slaughter to her position after Trump dismissed her without cause in March 2025.
The three-judge panel agreed with a lower court ruling that Trump’s firing of the Biden-appointed commissioner violated established Supreme Court precedent. Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard, both Obama appointees, formed the majority, while Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissented from the decision.
The majority opinion emphasized that any ruling favoring the government would require defying binding Supreme Court precedent established in the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. That landmark decision established that presidents cannot fire FTC commissioners at will and can only remove them for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The judges concluded that, due to clear and directly relevant Supreme Court precedent, the government had virtually no chance of winning on appeal.
Slaughter’s removal and reinstatement have followed a complex legal trajectory. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, appointed by former President Joe Biden, initially ruled in July 2025 that Trump’s firing of Slaughter was illegal and without effect, reinstating her through the end of her Senate-confirmed term in 2029. In late July, the D.C. Circuit put a temporary hold on that order, but Tuesday’s decision clears the way for Slaughter to resume her position on the commission.
In her dissent, Judge Rao argued the court should have followed the Supreme Court’s recent emergency stays in other removal cases. She contended that federal courts likely lack the power to reinstate an executive branch official fired by the president and that such actions intrude on presidential authority over the executive branch.
The Trump administration has mounted a broader campaign to remove Democratic appointees from independent agencies. The Supreme Court has recently sided with Trump in similar battles, allowing him to remove board members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board in May 2025. The high court later extended that authority to three commissioners at the Consumer Product Safety Commission in July 2025.
Trump also attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook last week, citing disputed allegations about her mortgage paperwork. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court specifically left the Federal Reserve out of its prior rulings, prompting Cook to file a lawsuit claiming that such action endangers the central bank’s independence.
White House spokesman Kush Desai indicated that the administration plans to appeal Tuesday’s order, stating that the Supreme Court has twice in recent months confirmed the president’s authority to remove heads of executive agencies. The Justice Department spokesperson confirmed the government’s intention to challenge the ruling.
The case represents part of a larger legal battle over the scope of presidential removal powers and the independence of federal regulatory agencies. Trump fired Slaughter along with fellow Democrat Alvaro Bedoya in March 2025, though Bedoya formally resigned from the commission in June, citing plans to seek work in the private sector.
Slaughter expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, indicating that she was heartened that the court recognized that Trump is not above the law. She stated her eagerness to return to work on behalf of the American people, emphasizing her commitment to the duties she was entrusted to perform.
The Trump administration could now seek relief from the full appellate court bench or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The administration has argued that all independent agencies fall under Trump’s control as head of the executive branch, challenging decades of established legal precedent that created protections for regulatory bodies.
The fight over removal powers could potentially prompt the Supreme Court to consider overturning the 90-year-old Humphrey’s Executor precedent. That decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating various sectors of the economy and government operations, though conservative legal theorists have long argued such agencies should answer directly to the president.
The Federal Trade Commission helps protect consumers through various regulatory functions, and the agency’s five-member structure is designed to maintain partisan balance. The ongoing legal dispute highlights the tension between presidential authority and congressional efforts to insulate certain regulatory functions from political interference.
