President Trump’s bold move to fire an FTC commissioner might just reshape the balance of power in Washington.

The Supreme Court seems poised to back Trump’s decision to dismiss former Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a case that could expand presidential authority over independent federal agencies.

This saga kicked off in March 2025 when Trump gave Slaughter the boot from her spot among the five FTC commissioners.

Trump’s firing sparks legal battle

The Federal Trade Commission Act, however, isn’t exactly a welcome mat for such actions, stating commissioners can only be removed for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance.

Lower courts didn’t buy Trump’s reasoning, ruling against the firing, but the Supreme Court stepped in by September 2025, allowing the dismissal to stand while they deliberated.

Fast forward to oral arguments on Monday, December 8, 2025, and the conservative justices appeared ready to hand Trump a win, questioning whether Congress has overstepped by shielding agencies like the FTC from presidential control.

Conservative justices challenge old precedent

Back in 1935, the court’s ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States made it clear that presidents couldn’t just fire commissioners over policy spats, but today’s conservative majority didn’t seem too impressed with that dusty precedent.

Chief Justice John Roberts quipped, “Humphrey’s Executor is just a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was.” Talk about a judicial mic drop—Roberts seems to think it’s time to rethink the old rules for a modern FTC.

US Solicitor General John Sauer piled on, arguing that the FTC’s structure and similar independent agencies infringe on the executive power that rightfully belongs to the president.

Congressional overreach in the spotlight

Conservative justices tossed out hypotheticals about Congress rejiggering agencies to curb presidential firing power, hinting at deeper concerns about legislative overreach.

Justice Neil Gorsuch mused, “Is the answer, perhaps to reinvigorate the inherent intelligible principle doctrine and recognize that Congress cannot delegate its legislative authority?” That’s a polite way of saying Congress might need to stay in its lane.

Meanwhile, the three liberal justices raised alarms about tampering with the independence of federal agencies, worried about tipping too much power into the president’s hands.

Broader implications for presidential power

Justice Elena Kagan cautioned against unchecked executive authority, but let’s be real—presidents need the tools to govern without being handcuffed by unaccountable bureaucrats.

A decision in this case, dubbed Trump v. Slaughter, isn’t expected until mid-2025, leaving plenty of time for speculation about how far this ruling might stretch presidential influence.

Some observers even suggested the justices’ leanings here could spell trouble for Trump in a separate tariff case recently heard by the court, though that’s a different can of worms for another day.