Trump DOJ Defends Firing FTC Democrats in Court

WASHINGTON, April 24, 2025 – The Trump administration asked a federal court Wednesday to upend nearly a century of legal precedent shielding independent regulatory agencies from direct presidential control. 

In a legal filing submitted in Slaughter v. Trump, Justice Department attorneys representing Trump argued that the modern-day Federal Trade Commission exercises sweeping executive authority and therefore its commissioners must be subject to at-will removal by the President.

“The present-day FTC is no ‘mere legislative or judicial aid’ and instead exercises significant executive power,” the brief states. “FTC Commissioners must therefore be removable at will to ensure they, like the rest of the Executive Branch, are accountable to the people who elect the President.”

The case stems from Trump’s March decision to abruptly remove Democratic commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya from the FTC. Both had been serving terms set to expire in 2029 and 2026, respectively.

Co-plaintiffs Slaughter and Bedoya have argued that their removal from the FTC by Trump violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Constitution’s separation of powers, and their statutory rights under the FTC Act.

Slaughter and Bedoya assert that under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), FTC commissioners can only be removed for cause – specifically, for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Trump’s March 18 removal letters cited no such grounds, instead claiming their service was inconsistent with his administration’s priorities.

“On the facts, the FTC’s powers have expanded significantly from those considered by the Supreme Court in 1935,” Trump’s legal counsel wrote. “The Supreme Court’s characterization of the FTC in Humphrey’s Executor bears no resemblance to the FTC today.”

The 36-page brief was submitted by senior attorneys in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, including Acting Assistant Attorney General Yaakov Roth, Assistant Branch Director Christopher Hall, and trial attorney Alexander Resar. Roth is the husband of NTIA Administrator-designate Arielle Roth.

In making their case, the Trump administration leaned heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in which the Court found that giving a single agency head broad power without presidential oversight violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.

But Slaughter and Bedoya argue that Seila Law did not undo the 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor, which upheld protections for FTC commissioners. They say the Court made clear that multi-member commissions like the FTC are different from the single-director agency at issue in Seila.

The case is currently before Judge Loren AliKhan of the U.S. District Court for D.C. AliKhan, a Biden appointee, recently blocked the President’s attempt to remove the head of the Inter-American Foundation, effectively upholding the independence and statutory protections of the agency’s nine-member board.

If the court sides with the administration, some worry the implications could reach well beyond the FTC. The Humphrey’s Executor decision has long protected the structure of dozens of independent regulatory bodies – from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Federal Reserve.

What’s next?

• May 5: Plaintiffs’ reply and opposition to DOJ’s cross-motion due
• May 12: DOJ’s reply in support of its cross-motion due
• May 20: Oral arguments before Judge AliKhan in D.C. court