On December 8, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that will likely result in implications beyond the fate of a fired Federal Trade Commissioner, Rebecca Slaughter. As we previously covered, President Trump fired Slaughter from her role with the Federal Trade Commission in March of this year, informing her and another Commissioner that their continued service would be “inconsistent with [the] administration’s priorities.” That firing was one of several the President executed of leaders of independent agencies this year, resulting in a jumble of lawsuits, each questioning the presidential authority to fire these individuals without cause.
The cases all centered around the question of whether the century-old precedent, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, was still good law. That case, which itself dealt with the presidential firing of an FTC Commissioner, held that presidents could only fire leaders of independent agencies or boards for cause, namely “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” However, that holding has been continually chipped away in the modern era, with cases like Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellin narrowing down the kinds of agencies the holding should apply to.
Prior to oral argument in Slaughter, some of the Justices had indicated their desire to continually narrow or fully do away with the precedent set by Humphrey’s. In the May 2025 case, Trump v. Wilcox, which dealt with President Trump’s firing of a member of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, the majority in granting the government’s stay stated that the President “may remove without cause executive officers who exercise [the executive] power on [the President’s] behalf.” And Justice Kavanaugh, in a concurrence to Trump v. Boyle, which dealt with the President’s firing of Consumer Safety Protection Commissioners, stated that there existed “at least a fair prospect (not certainty, but at least a reasonable prospect)” that the Court would eventually overrule or narrowHumphrey’s.
The Court, during oral arguments on December 8th, appeared to indicate that Trump v. Slaughter may ultimately be the final nail in Humphrey’s coffin. Justices Gorsuch and Roberts seem all but certain to push for overruling the precedent, with Justice Gorsuch stating that Humphrey’s was “poorly reasoned” and Chief Justice Roberts calling the case “a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was.”
Justice Alito struck a slightly narrower view, focusing not as heavily on Humphrey’s itself, but rather on the agencies that had been challenged through the President’s firings. He asked Solicitor General Sauer how the Court could craft a ruling that would “reserve a decision on those agencies that may not come before us in the near future or perhaps at any time in the future.”
The liberal Justices appeared much less willing to let Humphrey’s disappear quietly into the night. Justice Sotomayor challenged Sauer to name another hundred-year-old precedent the Court had overruled, specifically one that had “fundamentally altered the structure of government[.]”. She then underscored her concern about that structure without the block provided by Humphrey’s, stating that “neither the King nor parliament nor prime ministers [of] England at the time of the founding, ever had unqualified removal power . . . “, indicating her concern about the magnitude of power this case would grant the President should it be decided entirely in the government’s favor.
Other Justices also appeared potentially troubled by the limits – or possible lack thereof – of the government’s logic with this argument, including Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh. Justice Barrett pushed Sauer to provide the Court with an indication of where those limits on presidential power stood, and Justice Kavanaugh said he was concerned specifically about undermining the independence of an agency like the Federal Reserve should the Court dismantle Humphrey’s.
Indeed, while the potential holding of Trump v. Slaughter may have wide-ranging consequences across government, the Federal Reserve could possibly be spared the blow. Another case pending before the Court concerns the Presidential firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who also argues she was removed from her position without cause. Justice Kavanaugh’s expression of concern for the Federal Reserve during oral argument echoed a sentiment that the Court previously expressed in Wilcox, that the Federal Reserve is uniquely structured and therefore viewed as distinct from other agencies. In response to Justice Kavanaugh’s concern, Solicitor General Sauer stated that the government “recognize[d] and acknowledge[d]” the Court’s prior statement about the Federal Reserve, seeming to indicate that the Agency and its leadership may remain safe for the time being due to its unique structure. Oral arguments concerning Governor Cook and the Federal Reserve are scheduled for January.
It remains to be seen how the Court will rule on the fate of Humphrey’s Executor, but at least several of the Justices seemed to make their positions known during oral arguments. Cranfill Sumner’s Administrative, Regulatory, and Government Law practice group will continue to monitor these cases and their impacts across the federal government, and our attorneys are prepared to advise regulated parties in this shifting regulatory landscape.
