The Execution of Humphrey’s Executor

By: Alison Booth
Edited by: Hannah Becker and Alexia Sextou

Last March, President Donald Trump removed Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from her position as a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Slaughter has since challenged her dismissal under the precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor. The Supreme Court will hear the case on December 8th, with ramifications for the scale of executive power to follow. [1]

In 1914, Congress formed the FTC to prohibit unfair competition and safeguard consumers from the potential of media monopolies. The commission aims to prevent issues by monitoring developing concentrations and enforcing consumer protection. Formed as an apolitical organization, the agency is made up of five commissioners. The president appoints each member to the commission, whom the Senate then confirms with a simple majority vote. [2] Bipartisan mandates and staggered terms allow the commission to act independently of political power. As a result, the president cannot unilaterally remove FTC commissioners without congressional approval unless they present “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” [3] However, Trump cited only policy differences as his reasoning behind removing Slaughter and Bedoya instead of an intent to follow the guidelines established in the formation of the FTC. [4] This indicates that Trump may be seeking to politicize the FTC.

Slaughter sued for her own reinstatement under Humphrey’s Executor. In this case, the estate of FTC Commissioner William Humphrey brought suit against the United States for back pay. President Franklin D. Roosevelt removed Humphrey for political and policy disagreements in October 1933. The Supreme Court of the United States ultimately decided the case in favor of the Humphrey estate, with the court citing the “quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative” [5] functions of the commission as a basis for striking politically motivated firings.

However, Trump’s firing of Slaughter failed to cite the Congressional grounds for removing an FTC commissioner. Slaughter's suit under the established and reaffirmed Humphrey’s Executor held in lower court decisions. At the district court hearing, Slaughter was reinstated under the SCOTUS precedent of commitment to the Humphrey’s Executor decision. [6]

In September 2025, the government appealed the case, but the appeals court denied a motion to stay, preventing Slaughter from being reinstated while the appeals played out. Later in September, SCOTUS granted the stay, citing concerns around further institutional change before a final decision was issued. [7]

In the order, the Court directed the parties to argue on the legitimacy of Humphrey’s Executor under concerns around separation of powers tied to the legality of removal established by Congress and the legitimacy of the Court’s power to rule on an individual’s firing from public offices. [8] Experts predict the precedent will be overturned or substantially reduced, given the Court’s stay order. [9]

The government will likely argue that the FTC has substantially changed since the time of the Humphrey’s Executor decision. [10] Such an argument aligns with reductions of the precedent and the allowance of firings in other executive roles. [11] Nonetheless, the Slaughter case is distinctive for its close repetition of many facts from Humphrey’s. This shows that established precedent continues to evolve.

The implications of this ruling touch on all sectors of government. On the agency level, formerly independent agencies will become more beholden to the dominant party’s politics. This greater policy alignment expands the possibilities for political maneuvering in relation to strong corporate powers. Independence has been essential to the formation of many governmental agencies. For the FTC specifically, autonomy sets the basis for greater confidence in its rulings. With the commission’s duties spanning the three branches of government, further alignment with political parties expands the reach of the dominant party beyond elected roles.

Connected to the greater politicalization, the separation of powers stands to see substantial shifts if the predicted reduction to Humprey’s Executor unfolds. Under the anticipated ruling, legislative power would transfer from Congress to the White House. In the status quo, Congress set the rules for the FTC, including the qualifications for removing a commissioner. Further, Congress must approve each commissioner before they can assume their role.

Depending on pre-established perspectives on the relative power between the branches, there is disagreement over whether this case will correct an overstepping of the legislature or be an expansion of executive power. Given the guidelines established in the Court’s order, the government is likely to argue the position of an abuse of power by the legislature. However, critics may see the government’s arguments as executive overreach.

The Humphrey’s Executor decision also applies to other independent agencies within the executive branch. This SCOTUS case has strong potential to set a new precedent of power redistribution to the increasingly unitary executive branch.

Notes:

1. Reuters. 2025. “Supreme Court sets December 8 date for arguments over Trump FTC firing.” Reuters. Accessed December 1.

2. “Appointment confirmation process.” Ballotpedia. Accessed December 8. https://ballotpedia.org/Appointment_confirmation_process.

3. 15 U.S. Code § 41

4. DiResta, Anthony E., and Timothy Taylor. 2025. “Supreme Court’s Potential Restructuring of FTC Could Have Substantial Implications: Insights.” Holland & Knight. Accessed November 7. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/09/supreme-courts-potential-restructuring-of-ftc.

5. Humphrey's Executor v. U.S., 295 U.S. 602 (1935).

6. SLAUGHTER et al v. TRUMP et al, (D.C. 2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00909/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00909-0.

7. "Trump v. Slaughter." Oyez. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/25-332.

8. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, et al., on application for stay, No. 606 (U.S. 2025).

9. Bednar, Nick. 2025. “’Slaughter’-Ing Humphrey’s Executor.” Default. Lawfare. October 15. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/slaughter--ing-humphrey-s-executor.

10. DiResta, Anthony E., and Timothy Taylor. 2025. “Supreme Court’s Potential Restructuring of FTC Could Have Substantial Implications: Insights.” Holland & Knight. Accessed November 7. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/09/supreme-courts-potential-restructuring-of-ftc.

11. Bednar, Nick. 2025. “’Slaughter’-Ing Humphrey’s Executor.” Default. Lawfare. October 15. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/slaughter--ing-humphrey-s-executor.

Bibliography:

15 U.S. Code § 41

“Appointment confirmation process.” Ballotpedia. Accessed December 8. https://ballotpedia.org/Appointment_confirmation_process.

Bednar, Nick. 2025. “’Slaughter’-Ing Humphrey’s Executor.” Default. Lawfare. October 15. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/slaughter--ing-humphrey-s-executor.

DiResta, Anthony E., and Timothy Taylor. 2025. “Supreme Court’s Potential Restructuring of FTC Could Have Substantial Implications: Insights.” Holland & Knight. Accessed November 7. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/09/supreme-courts-potential-restructuring-of-ftc.

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, et al., on application for stay, No. 606 (U.S. 2025).

Humphrey's Executor v. U.S., 295 U.S. 602 (1935).

SLAUGHTER et al v. TRUMP et al, (D.C. 2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00909/USCOURTS-dcd-1_25-cv-00909-0.

Reuters. 2025. “Supreme Court sets December 8 date for arguments over Trump FTC firing.” Reuters. Accessed December 1.

"Trump v. Slaughter." Oyez. Accessed November 6, 2025. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/25-332.