President Donald Trump’s bold move to oust two Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners has ignited a fierce legal showdown.
Democratic Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya are suing the administration, asserting that Trump lacks the authority to remove them from their posts, Newsweek reported.
The lawsuit, filed by Slaughter and Bedoya, challenges Trump’s attempt to fire them from the FTC, an agency tasked with consumer protection and antitrust enforcement. On April 25, 2025, a group of Democratic state attorney generals from states including California, New York, and Illinois filed an amicus brief supporting the commissioners.
The brief, addressed to U.S. District Court Judge Loren L. AliKhan, argues that Trump’s actions overstep his legal bounds.
The FTC operates with five commissioners, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, serving seven-year terms. No more than three commissioners can belong to the same political party, ensuring a bipartisan balance. The president designates one as chair, but the law restricts removals to cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
The amicus brief contends that Trump’s attempt to remove Slaughter and Bedoya lacks justification under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It warns that allowing such removals could set a dangerous precedent, likening the move to hypothetically ousting Article III judges, who serve during “good behavior” per the Constitution. The brief emphasizes that courts must intervene to prevent “untenable consequences.”
“The Administration essentially asserts that even if the President has no power to remove an officer, he can do it anyway,” the amicus brief states. It argues that such actions, if unchecked, would undermine the rule of law. The brief insists that federal courts have the authority to block unlawful removals.
The comparison to Article III judges underscores the gravity of the issue. “For instance, all parties presumably agree that the President does not have the power to remove an Article III judge,” the brief notes. If a president attempted such a removal, courts could declare it legally void, ensuring the judge remains in office.
The FTC’s structure fosters collaboration with states, pooling resources to combat fraud and monopolies. Its century-long record of expertise bolsters its credibility in consumer protection and antitrust litigation. The amicus brief argues that removing Slaughter and Bedoya disrupts this bipartisan framework, weakening the agency’s mission.
Alvaro Bedoya, in a March 18, 2025, post on X, defended the FTC’s independence. “The FTC is an independent agency founded 111 years ago to fight fraudsters and monopolists,” he wrote. He criticized Trump’s actions as an attempt to turn the agency into a “lapdog” for his allies.
The lawsuit draws on the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which affirmed the independence of agencies like the FTC. This ruling limits the president’s ability to fire commissioners without cause. However, the Trump administration seeks to challenge this precedent, arguing it hampers executive authority.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, in a letter to the Congressional Judiciary Committee, expressed the administration’s intent to overturn Humphrey’s Executor. “The Department intends to urge the Supreme Court to overrule [Humphrey’s Executor],” Harris wrote, calling it an unconstitutional restriction on the president’s supervisory power. This position signals a broader push to expand executive control over federal agencies.
The administration must respond to the lawsuit by April 23, 2025, with plaintiffs given until May 5, 2025, to reply. A hearing is scheduled for May 20, 2025, before Judge AliKhan. The outcome could reshape the balance of power between the president and independent agencies.
The White House did not respond to requests for comment. Spokespeople for the attorney generals’ offices in Colorado and Illinois also declined to provide additional statements. The silence from both sides leaves the public awaiting the court’s decision.
The amicus brief warns that unchecked presidential removals could extend beyond the FTC, threatening judicial independence. It imagines a scenario where a president attempts to bar a judge from a courthouse, requiring court intervention to restore order. “The district court has the power to vindicate the statutory scheme,” the brief asserts.
The brief further rejects the idea that unlawful actions by the president are automatically effective. “The President cannot expand his powers through adverse possession,” it states, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in upholding legal limits. This argument aligns with conservative principles of checks and balances, even as it critiques Trump’s approach.
As the legal battle unfolds, the case tests the boundaries of presidential authority and the independence of federal institutions. The FTC, a cornerstone of consumer protection, stands at the center of this high-stakes dispute.
The May 20 hearing will be a critical moment in determining whether Trump’s actions hold or are struck down by the courts.
