Supreme Court upholds Trump firing of FTC commissioners in expansion of presidential power
- US News
- World News
- Page Six
- Sports
- Post Sports+
- Sports Betting
- Business
- Opinion
- Entertainment
- Shopping
- Lifestyle
- Health
- Real Estate
- Alexa
- Media
- Tech
- Science
- Astrology
- Video
- Photos
- Pod Force One
- NY POSTcast
Switch between CA and NY editions here.
Editiontrending now in US News
Skip to main content
Vile footage shows Texas sisters Cookie and Kitty grin as...
Mom tried calling best pal minutes before being butchered,...
The insane temps NYC will hit this week as ‘heat...
Horrific video shows huge crocodile that killed tourist in front...
Victim of horrific crocodile attack in beloved resort town...
Nancy Guthrie suspects sent latest ransom note as ‘mea...
Suspected murderer drops dead of heart attack while dumping body...
Baby almost beaten to death by other kids after moms allegedly...
Politics
Supreme Court upholds Trump firing of FTC commissioners in expansion of presidential power
By Ryan King Published June 29, 2026 Updated June 29, 2026, 12:36 p.m. ETSee more of our coverage in your search results.
Add The New York Post on GoogleWASHINGTON — President Trump acted lawfully when he fired former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter last year, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, finding legal protections against such dismissals unconstitutional.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 opinion that overturned precedents restricting presidents from removing officials at independent government agencies without cause.
“Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work,” Roberts wrote.
“Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”
5
Trump had moved to fire both Slaughter, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and her fellow Democratic commissioner Alvaro Bedoya in March of last year, with the White House arguing their continued service was “inconsistent with [the] Administration’s priorities.”
Explore More
Vile footage shows Texas sisters Cookie and Kitty grin as they’re busted for allegedly hacking mom of 5 to death
Mom tried calling best pal minutes before being butchered, allegedly by Texas sisters Kitty and Cookie
The insane temps NYC will hit this week as ‘heat dome’ engulfs area — and meteorologist issues July 4 warning
Slaughter sued, arguing the administration had flouted the Federal Trade Commission Act, which states that the president may only remove commissioners for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
A DC federal judge and appeals court panel ruled that Slaughter was wrongly fired, but the Supreme Court stayed those decisions in September 2025.
Roberts stressed in the majority opinion that Article II of the Constitution vests “executive power” in the presidency. He also noted that ever since the American founding, executive officials “were subject to the President’s superintendence” and therefore, “had to be removable by him at will.”
5
The Supreme Court’s 1926 decision in Myers v. United States found that the president alone has the power to remove appointed officers.
But nine years later, the justices carved out exemption for the FTC in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which has been followed in determining the makeup of other independent agenices.
Humphrey’s Executor has since been attacked by conservative legal analysts who argued that it unconstitutionally infringed on the president’s Article II powers and created an unaccountable administrative state.
During oral arguments, Roberts raised a more practical point: That Humphrey’s Executor concerned “an agency that had very little, if any, executive power” compared to its current status. Roberts had also suggested Humphrey’s was “just a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was.” “While Myers was perhaps our best word on the subject, it was not our last,” Roberts wrote Monday. “From the start, Humphrey’s was tethered to a highly circumscribed and almost fictional view of the FTC’s role.”
“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”
Roberts caveated that the Federal Reserve may warrant an exception to the opinion and that the president may be restricted from firing key officials at the central bank.
5
Also Monday, the high court rejected a request to quash a lower court order blocking Trump’s attempt to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud.
“We have left open the possibility that some functions traditionally handled outside the Executive Branch may not be encompassed by Myers’s general rule,” Roberts wrote.
“And one example we have given of an entity that may have such a unique role is the Federal Reserve, to the extent that it follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States—both of which influenced monetary policy and neither of which were subject to plenary Presidential control.”
Roberts and Republican-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh were the only two justices in the majority for both the Cook and Slaughter cases.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the main dissent, joined by fellow liberals Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
5
“Congress and more than a dozen Presidents have relied on Humphrey’s to construct a workable Government, creating many other agencies in the FTC’s tradition,” Sotomayor wrote. “Today, this Court undoes centuries of political practice and concludes that all three branches of Government have been acting in open defiance of the Constitution all this time. Its conclusion is wrong.”
Sotomayor also slammed the potential carveout for the Federal Reserve, arguing that there are “workability problems” that raise the quesiton of “how close is close enough” for a historical analog to warrant an exception.
“Today, the majority replaces 90 years of proven, workable practice with a half-baked theory of executive power that is simultaneously all-encompassing yet also subject to necessary but undefined exceptions,” she chided.
5
During Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court has given the president a string of temporary wins on its motions docket for many cases involving his attempts to fire high-level government officials. Those temporary decisions usually aren’t explained. But the high court’s Monday decision sheds light on the rationale.
“BIG WIN just moments ago at the Supreme Court, in the Slaughter Case, confirming Presidential Power in our Country to remove Executive Branch Officers and Agency Appointees, or Representatives, under Article II,” Trump thundered on Truth Social. “This Decision was long sought by United States Presidents, dating all the way back to the 1930s.”
Trump later deemed it “the Greatest Increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years,” adding: “Such a Monumental Ruling at such an important time!”
Filed under Read Next Supreme Court blocks Trump bid to fire Fed governor Lisa C...Trending Now on NYPost.com
-
This story has been shared 49,485 times.
49,485
Vile footage shows Texas sisters Cookie and Kitty grin as they’re busted for allegedly hacking mom of 5 to death
-
This story has been shared 40,295 times.
40,295
Golf star’s ex-wife speaks out on social media after Phil Mickelson explicit photo allegations
-
This story has been shared 38,117 times.
38,117
French bombshell dubbed ‘the most beautiful girl in the world’ as a kid gets married at 25
Most Commented Join the conversation
-
This story has 2.4K comments.
2.4K
Mamdani won’t enforce SCOTUS ruling on deportation protection for Haitians, Syrians
-
This story has 1.8K comments.
1.8K
NYC enacts rent freeze on 1M stabilized units after Mamdani is accused of stacking board
-
This story has 1.6K comments.
1.6K
JD Vance tells Bill Maher how ‘America wins’ with or without Iran deal
Now on Page Six
-
Jordyn Woods says this $11 mascara is ‘the best’: ‘Probably the same formula as the high-end brands’
-
RHORI Recap: Jo-Ellen brings all of the receipts against Rulla’s husband Brian
-
Princess Anne dusts off 42-year-old dress for royal banquet
Video
Now on Decider
See All
More Stories
Page Six
Daveigh Chase’s cause of death revealed
Decider
Stream It Or Skip It: ‘Agent Kim Reactivated’ On Netflix, Where A Mild-Mannered Office Worker Dregs Up His Black Ops Past When His Daughter Goes Missing
NYPost
Vile footage shows Texas sisters Cookie and Kitty grin as they’re busted for allegedly hacking mom of 5 to death
© 2026 NYP Holdings, Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use Subscription Terms Privacy Notice SitemapYour California Privacy Rights
Badenoch blasts 'moaning' female Labour MPs over Burnham jobs 'quota'
Kemi Badenoch has told Labour women to earn a job in Andy Burnham's Cabinet instead of demanding they are handed jobs because of their gender.
The Tory leader lashed out today amid reports that female MPs are demanding the de-facto new prime minister introduce a 50:50 gender split 'quota' in his government.
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister also complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts.
But in a scathing article in the Times today Mrs Badenoch told them to 'stop moaning' and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'.
'There are many, many reasons why you shouldn't have any Milibands in the cabinet,' she said.
'But complaining that the boys haven't given them the right jobs or that the boys are taking all the jobs, just shows that Labour's women still don't get it.'
The idea of quotas was also attacked by Baroness Jacqui Smith, Labour's Skills Minister.
Asked by Times Radio if Mr Burnham should reserve jobs for women, she said: 'No, I think what Andy Burnham should be doing is building the very best team around him to change this country.'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs
Amid reports that former foreign secretary David Miliband (above, right, in 2010) is being lined up to return to the role, possibly with his brother Ed as Chancellor, one female minister complained that Burnham could not have 'more Milibands than women' in the top posts
But Mrs Badenoch told them to pipe down and get chosen on merit instead of retreating into 'more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country'
A letter written by the Women's Parliamentary Labour Party and seen by the BBC has called on Mr Burnham to ensure a 50:50 split between men and women in government jobs after he succeeds Sir Keir Starmer.
'We are asking you to demonstrate this change from day one and address the toxicity and misogyny within our own party and government,' it said.
Labour has never had a female leader, while the Conservatives have had three, and Mrs Badenoch urged the government to follow its meritocratic example.
'If you run a meritocracy, then you do not have to worry about jobs for the boys,' she wrote.
'Every woman who is a Conservative MP, every woman who has ever won the leadership, has had to fight to get where she is.
'By contrast, Labour women are demanding guarantees from Burnham. But the truth is he doesn't have to give any guarantees.
'If none of Labour's women are prepared to get their hands dirty and challenge him for the leadership, their demands are toothless.'
'In fact, it's quite revealing that the women's parliamentary Labour Party has written to Burnham asking him to commit himself to at least 50 per cent female ministers.
'This has nothing to do with meritocracy. It is yet more of the failed identity politics that is holding back our country.'
