This case before the U.S. Supreme Court concerns whether the president may remove members of independent federal agency boards without cause, or whether longstanding legal limits on presidential removal power remain enforceable.
A group of former independent agency officials who were unlawfully removed from office by President Trump, along with leading scholars of administrative law and separation of powers, filed a friend-of-the-court brief to provide the Court with critical historical and practical context. The brief explains why Congress has long required independence for certain agencies and why those protections are essential to democracy, public safety, and economic stability.
The case arose after President Trump fired Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without invoking the “for-cause” statutory standard that governs FTC removal. Slaughter challenged her removal in court, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that it was unlawful under existing precedent.
Independent agencies—including those that oversee transportation safety, labor relations, election administration, financial markets, and the civil service—were deliberately designed by Congress to be insulated from political pressure. Their leaders are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but may be removed only for cause, such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct. These protections ensure that agency decisions are based on expertise, evidence, and the law—not political loyalty.
The amici include unlawfully removed board members of the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, and the Surface Transportation Board, as well as scholars who study independent agencies and constitutional structure. Several of the former officials have active lawsuits challenging their removals. Their experiences demonstrate how at-will removals destabilize agencies, disrupt critical work, and undermine public trust.
The brief explains that weakening removal protections would allow presidents to reshape independent agencies for political reasons, threatening aviation safety, labor protections, election integrity, financial stability, and the merit-based civil service. It urges the Court to reaffirm precedent recognizing Congress’s authority to create independent agencies and to limit presidential power to remove their leaders without cause.
Democracy Forward represents the former agency officials and scholars in submitting this brief to ensure the Court fully understands what is at stake for democratic governance and the rule of law.
Timeline
-
Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging their removal as unlawful under federal law and Supreme Court precedent.
-
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted Slaughter’s motion for summary judgment, holding that her removal was unlawful under statutory removal protections and existing precedent.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the district court’s order and granted certiorari before judgment, agreeing to hear the case directly rather than wait for further appellate review.
-
On the same day, the Supreme Court issued an order staying the district court’s reinstatement order, allowing Slaughter’s removal to remain in effect while the case proceeds.
-
Former independent agency officials and leading scholars file a friend-of-the-court brief explaining why agency independence and for-cause removal protections are essential to democratic governance.
-
The Supreme Court hears oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter.
