During oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter—a case that could reshape how much power presidents have over independent federal agencies—a sharp back-and-forth between Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Solicitor General D. John Sauer briefly froze the Supreme Court chamber.
Sauer argued that “the sky will not fall” if long-standing limits on presidential removal power are discarded. Sotomayor pushed back, warning that his position would effectively allow the president “to do more than the law permits.”
The exchange stunned observers because it highlighted how far the government’s theory could reach: it would strip away key protections that keep presidents from fully controlling independent watchdogs, potentially shifting the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.
Why This Case Matters
On Monday, the Court heard arguments in a dispute that could redefine the boundary between Congress and the presidency: whether to narrow or overturn Humphrey’s Executor, the nearly 90-year-old precedent that allows Congress to insulate leaders of independent agencies from being fired at will.
The case stems from President Donald Trump’s decision to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without first making a statutory finding of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” That action led to Trump v. Slaughter, now before the justices.
The intense exchange between Sotomayor and Sauer—and Sotomayor’s warning that the government’s approach would let the president “do more than the law permits”—captured just how much is at stake. A ruling siding with Sauer could give presidents sweeping new authority over federal regulators and alter the modern administrative state.
A Direct Challenge to a 90-Year Precedent
At the core of the case is whether the Court should trim back or overturn Humphrey’s Executor (1935), which has long allowed Congress to restrict the president’s power to remove commissioners of independent agencies such as the FTC.
The government, through Sauer, now argues that the Constitution’s structure gives the president full removal authority and that Humphrey’s Executor should be discarded entirely.
That position reflects a broader shift in the Justice Department’s litigation strategy throughout 2025, including in cases involving the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and other agencies whose leaders have traditionally enjoyed removal protections.
A Showdown Over Presidential Power
During arguments, the theoretical debate turned concrete when the justices pressed Sauer on what would happen if those limits disappeared.
Sotomayor challenged him on the structural consequences of his argument:
“You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent,” she said.
Justice Samuel Alito then gave Sauer the opportunity to respond.
“The sky will not fall,” Sauer replied. “The entire government will move toward accountability to the people.”
The clash laid bare a fundamental divide on the Court: some justices see removal protections as vital to preserving Congress’s institutional design, while others view those limits as inconsistent with Article II, which creates the presidency and vests “the executive Power” in a single elected official.
According to briefing filed on behalf of the petitioners, the government now asserts that the president’s removal authority is “conclusive and preclusive,” building on recent Supreme Court decisions that emphasize presidential control over administrative officers.
Sotomayor, however, zeroed in on how far that reasoning could go. Responding to Sauer’s explanation, she said:
“What you’re saying is the president can do more than the law permits.”
The chamber fell silent.
After a pause, Sauer reiterated portions of his earlier argument and urged the Court to reverse Humphrey’s Executor.
Competing Views of Modern Agencies
The moment encapsulated the core tension in both the briefs and the arguments.
Petitioners argue that modern agencies like the FTC now wield “considerable executive power,” making removal restrictions unconstitutional under Article II.
Respondents counter that Humphrey’s Executor “controls this case,” stressing that the FTC still performs quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions that Congress deliberately sought to shield from direct political influence.
The Stakes for the Administrative State
The outcome in Trump v. Slaughter will resonate far beyond the FTC.
In related litigation—such as cases involving the NLRB and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)—the Court has already allowed certain removals to proceed while appeals were ongoing. Those interim decisions have been widely seen as signaling skepticism toward robust removal protections, a view some lower courts have echoed.
Still, Monday’s argument showed that several justices remain wary of the breadth of the government’s theory. Justice Elena Kagan noted that the Solicitor General’s position rests on the idea that the Vesting Clause grants “all of the executive power to the president,” a premise she suggested raises serious questions about what meaningful limits, if any, would remain.
Whether the Court ultimately embraces the expansive presidential removal authority urged by Sauer or heeds the concerns voiced by Sotomayor and others is unclear. But the silence that followed Sotomayor’s final remark suggested that everyone in the room understood how high the stakes are.
What Key Players Are Saying
D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, at oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter:
“Humphrey’s must be overruled. It has become a decaying husk with bold and particularly dangerous pretensions.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, questioning Sauer in Trump v. Slaughter:
“Which other case has fundamentally altered the structure of government? For over a hundred years, actually, since 1887, we’ve had multi-member boards.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, discussing Humphrey’s Executor in the context of Trump v. Slaughter:
“Humphrey’s Executor is just a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was…”
What Happens Next
The justices will now confer in private and take an initial, nonbinding vote. The senior justice in the majority will then assign the opinion, and the drafting and revision process will begin—a process that can take months, especially in a major separation-of-powers case.
Once the opinions are finalized, the Court will publicly announce its decision, likely before the term ends in June 2026.
Whatever the outcome, the ruling will immediately define the president’s power to remove leaders of independent agencies, shape ongoing disputes involving bodies like the NLRB and MSPB, and force rapid adjustments inside the executive branch—and possibly in Congress—depending on how dramatically the Court redraws the balance of authority between the branches of government.
