• by Wendy Davis , September 17, 2025

The Trump administration this week pressed the Supreme Court to allow him to fire Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, arguing in papers filed Tuesday that the agency's commissioners "must be removable at will."

The new papers come in a battle dating to March, when President Donald Trump's ousted Slaughter from the FTC on the grounds that her continued service was inconsistent with his administration's priorities.

Slaughter sued over the move, arguing that the 90-year-old Supreme Court decision in the case known as Humphrey's Executor prohibited a president from removing an FTC member except for one of three reasons set out by Congress -- inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.

Lower courts agreed with Slaughter and ordered her reinstated to the agency.

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer sought an emergency stay of those rulings, and Chief Justice John Roberts granted that request and temporarily halted Slaughter's return to the agency.

Earlier this week, Slaughter's attorneys asked the Supreme Court to lift that order and allow her to resume work at the FTC.

On Tuesday, Sauer urged the court to reject Slaughter's arguments and order a longer-term stay, reiterating the administration's position that Trump can fire Slaughter despite the 1935 Humphrey's Executor ruling.

"Humphrey’s Executor is not a get-out-of-removal-free card for the FTC," Sauer writes.

He argues that more recent cases -- including the court's May ruling halting the reinstatement of Gwynne Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection -- support the position that Trump can oust Slaughter without cause.

Sauer also says the FTC now exercises more power than in 1935, when Humphrey's Executor was decided. For instance, he argues, the FTC today has the power to seek civil penalties.

Additionally, the administration claims that courts lack the power to order Slaughter's reinstatement, essentially arguing that even if she proves her ouster was unlawful, her remedy would be back pay.

"A reinstatement order burdens the president’s exercise of executive power far more than a back-pay order," the solicitor general argues. "Only the former remedy compels the president to entrust executive power to someone he has sought to remove."