This case arises from the Trump administration’s attempt to remove Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya from the Federal Trade Commission.
Slaughter and Bedoya both challenged their removals, but Bedoya ultimately resigned from his position. On July 17, 2025, the federal district court in Washington, D.C., ruled in Slaughter’s favor and ordered her reinstatement. The Trump administration appealed the decision to the federal court of appeals for the D.C. Circuit and requested an order that would allow Slaughter to be removed from her position while the case proceeds. The D.C. Circuit denied that request on September 2, 2025, after which the administration filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a temporary order granting the administration’s request to remove Slaughter while the case proceeds, followed by an order “staying,” or pausing, the district court’s reinstatement order until the Court issues its final judgment in the case. At that time, the Court also granted certiorari in the case and requested briefing from the parties.
Legal historian and Historians Council Member Professor Jane Manners filed an amicus brief in support of Slaughter that centers on the history of presidential removal authority. It argues that the President has no inherent authority to remove independent agency officers at will and that Congress has well-settled constitutional authority to place certain limitations on the president. The brief surveys the history of these limitations to demonstrate that they were derived from robust common law and state law precedents, deployed by early American state legislatures, codified by Congress in the 19th century without any constitutional controversy, and routinely adopted to create new independent agencies throughout the 20th century.
