Trump’s firing of 2 Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission was unconstitutional, judge rules

A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump illegally fired two Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission earlier this year in his efforts to exert control over independent agencies across the government.

One of the commissioners, Alvaro Bedoya, resigned after suing to challenge the firings. The other plaintiff, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, can now resume her duties as commissioner because Trump lacks the constitutional authority to remove her, the judge ruled Thursday.

Attorneys for the Trump administration almost immediately declared their intent to appeal.

U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan cited decades of legal precedent in her written opinion, including a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found a similar attempt by President Franklin D. Roosevelt was unlawful because commissioners could be removed only for cause, not at the president’s whim. She said her ruling would uphold “clearly established law that has been enacted by a coequal branch of government, reaffirmed by another coequal branch, and acquiesced to by thirteen executives over the course of ninety years.”

Trump fired the commission’s two Democratic members in March. The FTC is a regulator created by Congress that enforces consumer protection measures and antitrust legislation. Its seats typically include three members of the president’s party and two from the opposing party.

Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter said they’d been dismissed illegally and immediately promised to sue. Bedoya later submitted his resignation in June. Slaughter has four years left in her term as commissioner.

“As the Court recognized today, the law is clear, and I look forward to getting back to work,” Slaughter said in a statement Thursday.

During a May court hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., plaintiffs’ attorneys warned against granting the president “absolute removal power over any executive officer,” saying it would effectively eliminate an important check on his power.

“That has never been the case in this country,” said attorney Aaron Crowell. “That’s not the law. That has never been the law.”

But attorneys for the Trump administration argued that the FTC’s role has expanded since the 1930s, and as such, its members should answer directly to the president.

“The president should be able to remove someone who is actively blocking his policies, for example,” Department of Justice attorney Emily Hall said during the hearing.

AliKhan, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Joe Biden in 2023, noted the long line of presidents before Trump who didn’t try to push the limits.

Commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They serve seven-year terms that are staggered to prevent multiple vacancies at once. They can be fired for displaying specific bad behaviors, including inefficiency, neglect of duty and malfeasance in office.

Trump told Bedoya and Slaughter that he was dismissing them because their service on the commission was inconsistent with his administration’s priorities, according to the lawsuit.

In its 1935 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the president couldn’t fire leaders of independent agencies without cause. Otherwise, the agencies would become more political and less independent. While that restriction was eroded in a subsequent decision that came in 2020, it has largely remained in place. The case, known as number of court challenges against the Trump administration’s personnel moves targeting boards and government executives.

The legal fight over the firings could have consequences for other independent agencies, including the Federal Reserve, an institution that has long sought to protect its independence. Economists and financial markets broadly support an independent Fed because they worry a politicized version would be more reluctant to take unpopular steps to fight inflation, such as raise interest rates.

Plaintiffs argue that a politicized FTC could also favor powerful corporations while driving up prices for consumers.

Attorney Amit Agarwal said the case isn’t just about his clients keeping their jobs. He said it’s about protecting “the will of the American people” and their right to have independent agencies working on their behalf.

“America is already suffering from an excess of executive power, and the last thing we need is to hand vast new powers to the president over Congress’s explicit and longstanding objection,” Agarwal said in a statement responding to the ruling, adding that “if Trump wants even more power, he should ask the people’s elected representatives in Congress, not unelected and politically unaccountable courts.”