A federal appeals court delivered a significant legal defeat to President Donald Trump on Tuesday, September 2, ruling in a 2-1 decision that he unlawfully fired Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s request to delay Slaughter’s reinstatement while the case proceeds through appeals.
The three-judge panel determined that FTC commissioners cannot be removed by a president without demonstrating cause, citing nearly 90 years of established legal precedent. Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard, both Obama appointees, joined in the majority opinion, while Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissented from the ruling.
Trump fired Slaughter and fellow Democratic Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya in March without providing any specific reason for their removal. The dismissals were part of a broader effort by the administration to exert control over independent federal agencies that Congress has historically attempted to insulate from political pressure.
The majority opinion emphasized that the government lacked any likelihood of success on appeal given controlling Supreme Court precedent. The court stated, “To grant a stay would be to defy the Supreme Court’s decisions that bind our judgments.”
The legal foundation for the ruling rests on the 1935 Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which established that presidents cannot fire FTC commissioners at will. The decision specified that commissioners can only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” under the 1914 law that created the agency.
U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan, appointed by former President Joe Biden, initially ruled in July that Trump’s firing of Slaughter was “illegal and without effect,” reinstating her through the end of her Senate-confirmed term in 2029. The D.C. Circuit temporarily stayed that order in late July, but Tuesday’s ruling allows Slaughter to return to her position.
Slaughter, who was originally appointed to the FTC by Trump in 2018, was designated as acting chair by Biden in January 2021 and reappointed to a second term in 2023. She expressed her eagerness to resume her duties, indicating she was very eager to return to the work she was entrusted to do on behalf of the American people. Slaughter also noted that she was confirmed unanimously by the Senate to a term ending in 2029 and intended to serve it out.
The dissenting judge, Rao, argued that federal courts likely lack the authority to order the reinstatement of an officer removed by the president. She contended that the appeals court should have followed the Supreme Court’s recent emergency stays in other removal cases, suggesting that Slaughter could seek back pay later if her removal was deemed unlawful.
Bedoya, who was also fired by Trump and initially joined the legal challenge, formally resigned from the commission in June to pursue work in the private sector and dropped out of the case. The FTC maintains a bipartisan structure with no more than three of its five commissioners allowed from the same political party.
The Trump administration has pursued similar removal actions against other independent agency leaders, with the Supreme Court previously allowing the president to fire board members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and three commissioners at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. However, the high court explicitly excluded the Federal Reserve from its earlier rulings this year.
Trump recently attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, citing disputed allegations about her mortgage paperwork. Cook has filed a lawsuit arguing the removal threatens the central bank’s independence, with that case remaining ongoing.
The Department of Justice announced plans to appeal Tuesday’s order, with the Trump administration potentially seeking relief from the full appellate court bench or the Supreme Court. White House spokesman Kush Desai indicated that Trump acted lawfully when removing Slaughter from the FTC, pointing to previous Supreme Court confirmations of the president’s authority to remove heads of executive agencies.
Legal scholars anticipate the Supreme Court may eventually overturn the Humphrey’s Executor precedent, as conservative justices have repeatedly signaled their view that the president should assert near total control of the executive branch. The high court has steadily reduced the number of positions protected by the 90-year-old ruling in recent years, though the precedent remains binding on lower courts.
