The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a consequential separation-of-powers decision, ruling 6-3 that the president may remove FTC commissioners at will. In doing so, the Court allowed President Donald Trump’s firing of Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter to stand and overturned the longstanding 1935 precedent of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had insulated FTC commissioners from removal except for cause.

The dispute, now reflected on Docket Alarm as Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, marks one of the Court’s most significant recent statements on presidential control over the administrative state. For nearly a century, Humphrey’s Executor stood as a foundational case supporting the structure of so-called independent agencies, particularly multimember commissions like the FTC. By discarding that protection here, the Court has altered the constitutional footing not just of the FTC, but potentially of a wide range of federal agencies designed to operate with some insulation from direct White House control.

For litigators, the immediate significance is practical as well as doctrinal. Expect a wave of challenges testing whether similar removal protections at other agencies can survive. Parties facing investigations, enforcement actions, or rulemakings may now have stronger arguments that agency leadership is more directly answerable to the president, with implications for appointment, removal, and ratification disputes. Counsel should also watch for new litigation over whether past agency actions remain secure if the underlying governance structure is now under constitutional pressure.

For in-house counsel and compliance teams, the decision may signal a more politically responsive FTC, potentially affecting enforcement priorities, merger review posture, consumer protection initiatives, and competition policy. A commission whose membership can be reshaped more quickly by a new administration may become less institutionally stable and more subject to rapid policy reversals. That increases the value of close monitoring of personnel changes and commission-level voting dynamics, especially in sectors already under FTC scrutiny.

The ruling also adds momentum to the Court’s broader project of narrowing limits on executive authority over agencies exercising significant federal power. While the opinion directly addresses the FTC, its logic is likely to be invoked in disputes involving other independent commissions and boards. Legal teams tracking federal regulatory risk should keep this case on their radar, both for its immediate effect on the FTC and for the follow-on litigation it is almost certain to generate.

You can follow the Supreme Court docket in Slaughter’s case here.