FOLLOW US

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Trump Firing Lawsuit has ignited a constitutional clash over presidential power, as recently ousted FTC commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro M. Bedoya filed suit Thursday in D.C. federal court. The two argue that former President Donald Trump violated long-standing legal precedent by removing them without cause, in what could become a defining legal battle over the future of independent federal agencies.

A Fight for FTC Independence

Slaughter and Bedoya wasted no time challenging their dismissals, pointing to the Federal Trade Commission Act, which only allows commissioners to be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Their lawsuit argues that Trump’s move tramples on decades of precedent, particularly the 1935 Supreme Court ruling Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which established that FTC commissioners cannot be fired at will.

“Plaintiffs will not and do not accept this unlawful action,” the complaint states. “This lawsuit is about preserving the integrity of the FTC and defending the rights of the American people.”

A Brewing Supreme Court Showdown

The case is already drawing comparisons to a parallel legal battle over Trump’s removal of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne A. Wilcox, a case that similarly questions whether Congress can shield independent agency members from sudden firings or if such protections unconstitutionally limit presidential authority.

With both disputes likely heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, the legal stakes are sky-high.

The Economic Fallout

Beyond the courtroom drama, Slaughter and Bedoya warn of severe economic repercussions.

"If the president can break a 90-year-old Supreme Court ruling to fire us for no reason, he can do it to the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the SEC," Bedoya warned in a social media post Thursday.

Slaughter emphasized the FTC’s role in protecting consumers from corporate monopolies, inflation, and privacy violations, adding:

“The FTC can't be bought with campaign contributions or bullied by politicians. This case isn’t just about us—it’s about every American who buys groceries, fills up at the gas station, or cares about the health of the economy.”

A Legal Precedent on the Line

The case centers on Humphrey’s Executor, a landmark ruling that once rebuffed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt to remove an FTC commissioner. At the time, the Supreme Court ruled that the FTC was a quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative body, not a typical executive agency, and therefore shielded from at-will removal.

Fast forward nearly a century, and Trump’s team is arguing that those protections are outdated. His March 18 termination letter, sent via White House deputy Trent Morse, echoed Roosevelt’s arguments almost word-for-word:

“Your continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my administration’s priorities. Accordingly, I am removing you from office pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution.”

Critics fear this signals Trump’s intention to leave the FTC understaffed, further weakening the agency’s ability to regulate corporate America.