Trump asks Supreme Court to allow removal of FTC’s only Democratic commissioner, challenging 90-year judicial precedent.

```

Media reported on Thursday that U.S. President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to allow him to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the only Democrat on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Analysts say this move could overturn a ninety-year-old judicial precedent, granting the White House greater control over federal regulatory agencies.

Previously, Trump attempted to remove Slaughter, who in turn filed a lawsuit over the matter. On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled to reinstate Slaughter. The Trump administration has now filed a request with the Supreme Court, asserting that the president has the authority to remove members of administrative agencies like the FTC without cause. The administration seeks immediate permission to remove Slaughter and also wants the Supreme Court to hear the case in full and render a final judgment.

Analysts say the appeal challenges a 1935 Supreme Court decision, which found that Congress has the authority to stipulate that the president cannot arbitrarily dismiss certain senior officials. Although the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has in recent years gradually weakened the ruling’s force, it has not yet been directly overturned.

Media reports say this conflict comes as Trump is also seeking to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, citing alleged mortgage fraud. Although the two matters involve different legal issues, Trump insists in the FTC case that he holds constitutional power to remove Slaughter "for any reason whatsoever."

Challenging the 1935 Ruling

Trump moved to dismiss Slaughter in March this year. Slaughter subsequently filed a lawsuit, claiming that this violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, which allows the president to remove FTC commissioners only for "misconduct" or "inefficiency." In July, a federal judge in Washington ruled in favor of Slaughter, and her job status has remained uncertain since then.

This case has become the most direct challenge yet to the 1935 "Humphrey’s Executor" decision, which originated when then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt fired a Republican FTC commissioner. The court ruled against Roosevelt, paving the way for the creation of numerous independent federal agencies.

American conservatives have long opposed "Humphrey’s Executor," arguing that it undermines the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Opposition has grown in recent years. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the president can remove the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) because the position wields excessive power and must be answerable to the president.

More recently, the Supreme Court has also allowed Trump to remove members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). In related decisions, the Court has hinted that Trump’s authority to remove Federal Reserve Chair Powell may not hold unless justified by legitimate reasons such as misconduct.

In the documents submitted to the Supreme Court on Thursday, the Trump administration stated that the D.C. Circuit’s actions disregarded prior Supreme Court decisions.

“Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s opinions, but they may never disregard them,” the administration wrote, citing a recent opinion by conservative justice Neil Gorsuch from a federal medical research funding case.

Supporters of "Humphrey’s Executor" argue that the Constitution grants Congress flexible power to establish regulatory agencies independent of the White House, to be overseen by professionals in key roles.

Risk Disclaimer and TermsThe market involves risks and investments should be made with caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account the individual investment goals, financial situation, or needs of any specific user. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are appropriate to their particular circumstances. Investing accordingly is at your own risk. ```