In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases challenging the president’s attempts to remove the heads of independent agencies without regard for the limitations or procedures set forth by Congress. On December 8, 2025, the Court will hear argument in Slaughter v. Trump, a case challenging the removal of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission. And on January 21, 2026, the Court will hear argument in Cook v. Trump, a case challenging the removal of Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. In both cases, the Court will consider fundamental questions surrounding the scope of congressional versus presidential authority under the Constitution, the validity of long-standing Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency heads, and the role of federal courts in preventing unlawful removals.
Ahead of arguments, a diverse array of historians filed amicus briefs supporting Slaughter and Cook. The Brennan Center has prepared this annotated guide to summarize each brief’s most prominent or unique points.
Brief of Professor Jane Manners in Slaughter v. Trump
This brief, filed by legal historian and member of the Brennan Center’s Historians Council on the Constitution Jane Manners, traces the robust history behind the three instances in which Congress allows the president to remove certain independent agency heads, such as Slaughter, from their positions: “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” — none of which the president cited in his attempt to fire Slaughter. The brief explores hundreds of years of common law and state law precedents, state legislative history, and congressional practice to argue that the provisions create a clear, workable standard that Congress can use to protect FTC commissioners from at-will removal by the president (i.e., removal based on mere policy differences) while still allowing the president to remove a commissioner for failing to faithfully execute the law, consistent with the framers’ constitutional plan. The Brennan Center and Friedman Kaplan Seiler Adelman & Robbins LLP are co-counsel for this brief.
Brief of Professors Andrea Scoseria Katz and Jonathan Gienapp in Slaughter v. Trump
Washington University School of Law Associate Professor Andrea Scoseria Katz filed this brief with legal historian and member of the Brennan Center’s Historians Council on the Constitution Jonathan Gienapp. The brief draws on a wealth of recent historical scholarship — including originalist scholarship — to counter arguments that the president possessed unfettered removal power in the early American republic. Rather, Gienapp and Katz explain that limits on the president’s removal power are firmly rooted in traditions stretching back to the nation’s founding. The brief further demonstrates that presidential removal was not treated as a settled feature of executive power under the Constitution, but instead as a management tool deployed by Congress to ensure an honest and effective administration. Kaplan Martin LLP is counsel for this brief.
Brief of Professor Noah Rosenblum and Legal History Fellow Nathaniel Donahue in Slaughter v. Trump
Legal historian and member of the Brennan Center’s Historians Council on the Constitution Noah Rosenblum filed this brief with Nathaniel Donahue, the Samuel I. Golieb Fellow in Legal History at New York University School of Law. The brief centers on the terms that long-standing Supreme Court precedent has used to describe which agencies may be protected from presidential removal: “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial.” The brief explores the history behind the terms to demonstrate that they were well understood and developed over a century ago, as well as to argue that they reach far more broadly than narrow readings of existing Supreme Court precedent suggest. Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP is counsel for this brief.
Brief of Professor Victoria Nourse and Lawyers Defending American Democracy in Slaughter v. Trump
This brief from Georgetown University Law Center Professor Victoria Nourse and Lawyers Defending American Democracy argues that independent agencies such as the FTC are not recent innovations of the 20th century. Instead, it traces recently unearthed history to demonstrate that the first U.S. Congresses and presidents routinely turned to independent multimember commissions to manage the nation’s early financial affairs, and that those commissions involved forms of removal that bypassed or placed limits on the president’s removal power. The brief concludes that in light of this history, the Supreme Court’s long-standing precedent on presidential removal power is consistent with a centuries-old tradition of function-based exceptions to presidential removal power. Lawyers for Good Government and Georgetown University Law Center Professor from Practice Clifford Sloan are co-counsel for this brief.
Brief of Professor Jed Shugerman in Slaughter v. Trump
This brief from legal historian and Boston University School of Law Professor Jed Shugerman uses an originalist framework to argue that Congress’s authority under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause serves as an overlooked starting point for evaluating its power to create and structure protected independent agency positions. The brief draws on the text and original public meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause, along with debates from the first Congress, to conclude that Congress’s statutory removal protections for FTC commissioners are consistent with the separation of powers. Bredhoff & Kaiser PLLC is counsel for this brief.
Brief of Professor Jane Manners in Cook v. Trump
This brief from Professor Manners explores the history behind statutes that provide certain independent agency heads, such as Cook, with a fixed term in office and allow removal only “for cause.” It walks through a substantial body of state and federal court precedent to argue that Congress intended for the removal of such officials to be accompanied by notice and a hearing, neither of which Cook received before her termination. The brief further argues that courts have long held the authority to review the executive’s determination of “cause,” and thus that the president’s decision to terminate Cook is subject to judicial review. It concludes by explaining that well-settled common-law precedent does not support the type of “cause” for which the president purported to remove Cook from her position: unproven allegations of private conduct that took place prior to the official’s time in office. The Brennan Center and the law firms Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP and Friedman Kaplan Seiler Adelman & Robbins LLP are co-counsel for this brief.
Brief of Professor Jed Shugerman in Cook v. Trump
This brief from Professor Shugerman traces centuries of English law and early American common law to explain that when Congress creates an office with a fixed term and protection against presidential removal without “cause,” the officeholder must receive fair notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond before any removal can take effect. It further argues that from a historical perspective, these protections are consistent with the president’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Democracy Forward Foundation is counsel for this brief.
