Boom—President Trump just got the green light from the Supreme Court to fire FTC member Rebecca Slaughter, and now the justices are poised to tackle a 90-year-old precedent that could reshape the balance of power in Washington, NewsNationNow reported.

The high court’s decision on Monday to take up this case could redefine whether Congress can shield agency leaders from presidential control, directly challenging Trump’s push to hire and fire at will.

This saga kicked off when Trump moved to oust Slaughter, a Democrat appointed to the Federal Trade Commission in 2018, back in March—without citing any cause as required by federal law.

Trump Challenges Old Agency Protections

Federal law states FTC commissioners can only be removed for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance, but Trump’s team argues such protections infringe on presidential authority under the Constitution.

After a district judge reinstated Slaughter in July, and the D.C. Circuit upheld that order, Chief Justice John Roberts stepped in to allow the firing to proceed while the Supreme Court deliberates.

Now, the court’s conservative majority, which has already chipped away at the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling, seems primed to reconsider whether Congress can limit presidential power over agencies.

Liberal Justices Push Back Hard

The court’s three liberal justices dissented on the temporary firing approval, with Justice Elena Kagan lamenting, “Our emergency docket should never be used...to permit what our own precedent bars.”

Well, with all due respect to Justice Kagan, perhaps it’s time to rethink precedents that tie a president’s hands when the Constitution clearly vests executive power in one office—not in unelected bureaucrats.

Kagan also warned that this move could “transfer government authority from Congress to the President,” but isn’t that exactly what the Founders intended with a strong executive branch, not a patchwork of untouchable fiefdoms?

Oral Arguments Set for December

Oral arguments are slated for December, with a ruling expected by next summer, potentially setting a landmark precedent for Trump’s second term as he seeks broader control over executive officials.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer emphasized the stakes, noting that resolving Slaughter’s case could “provide important guidance” for numerous similar disputes. If that’s not a signal this fight matters, what is?

Slaughter’s legal team, while pushing against emergency intervention, agreed the issue demands swift resolution, stating it’s of “imperative public importance” to settle doubts about independent agencies.

Broader Implications for Agency Independence

Let’s not forget the Supreme Court has already allowed temporary firings of other officials like NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris, though those cases were kicked back to lower courts without final answers.

Trump’s administration isn’t shy about its stance—arguing courts can’t even reinstate FTC commissioners, a position that could kneecap judicial oversight if the justices agree.

This isn’t just about one firing; it’s about whether a president can steer the ship without Congress rigging the rudder, and with a conservative court, the tide might finally turn against outdated, overreaching protections.