A federal appeals court delivered a significant legal blow to President Donald Trump on Tuesday, September 2, 2025, when a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that his firing of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter was unlawful. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Slaughter to her position, rejecting the Trump administration’s request to delay the ruling during its appeal.
The court determined that FTC commissioners may not be fired by a president without cause, citing nearly a century of established legal precedent. Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard, both Obama appointees, joined in the majority opinion reinstating Slaughter, while Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissented from the decision.
Trump removed Slaughter and fellow Democratic commissioner Alvaro Bedoya in March 2025 as part of his broader effort to exert influence over federal agencies. The president provided no specific reason for the firings, which immediately sparked legal challenges from both commissioners. Bedoya later resigned from the FTC in June and dropped his case.
The majority opinion emphasized the binding nature of Supreme Court precedent, particularly the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which established that presidents cannot remove FTC commissioners at will. The appeals court noted that “the government has no likelihood of success on appeal given controlling and directly on point Supreme Court precedent.”
U.S. District Judge Loren 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 at the FTC.
In her dissent, Rao argued that federal courts likely lack the power to reinstate an executive branch official fired by the president. She contended that the court should have followed the Supreme Court’s recent emergency stays in other removal cases, noting that federal courts must consider the balance of equities in such matters.
The legal battle represents part of a broader constitutional question about presidential power over independent agencies. The FTC was established under a 1914 law that permits commissioners to be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The agency has five commissioners who serve seven-year terms, with no more than three from one political party.
Slaughter was originally appointed to the FTC by Trump in 2018, then designated as acting chair by Biden in January 2021. Biden reappointed her to a second term in 2023, which is scheduled to end in September 2029. She expressed her determination to serve out her full term and indicated her eagerness to return to work on behalf of the American people.
The Supreme Court has recently sided with Trump in similar battles over firing independent officials. In May, the justices allowed him to remove board members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board while legal challenges continued. The court later extended that reach to three commissioners at the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Trump’s administration has indicated plans to appeal Tuesday’s order. A Department of Justice spokesperson confirmed the government intends to challenge the ruling, potentially seeking relief from the full appellate court bench or the Supreme Court. The Trump administration could now ask the high court to intervene in the case.
On Thursday, September 4, the Justice Department formally asked the Supreme Court to allow Trump to fire Slaughter, presenting a direct challenge to the 1935 precedent. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the FTC wields more power now than when it was founded, strengthening Trump’s constitutional authority under Article 2 to control the agency.
The case has broader implications for the independence of federal agencies. White House spokesman Kush Desai indicated that the Supreme Court has twice confirmed the president’s authority to remove heads of executive agencies in recent months. The administration expressed confidence in being vindicated for a third time.
Legal scholars expect the Supreme Court may eventually overturn Humphrey’s Executor, as conservative justices have repeatedly signaled their view that presidents should assert near total control over the executive branch. However, the 90-year-old precedent remains binding law for lower courts until formally overturned.
The dispute over Slaughter’s firing represents one of many lawsuits challenging Trump’s efforts to remove Democrat-appointed leaders of federal agencies that Congress has historically tried to insulate from political pressure. Similar cases involving other independent agencies continue to work their way through the judicial system.
