WASHINGTON— The Trump v. Slaughter drew heated arguments before the Supreme Court on Monday, as nearly 90 years of protections for independent-agency officials are on the line—including at NCUA—and there is great potential for reshaping the balance of power between the presidency and Congress.
As the CU Daily has been reporting, the issue is whether the president may fire members of independent, multi-member agencies — in this case, Rebecca Slaughter of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — without cause, overriding statutory safeguards long upheld under the 1935 decision Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
The case stems from former President Donald J. Trump’s dismissal of FTC Commissioner Kelly Slaughter in March 2025 — a removal her supporters argue violated the statutory requirement that commissioners be removable only “for cause,” such as inefficiency or misconduct.
NCUA board members Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka have made similar arguments, but the Supreme Court declined to hear their case and returned it to a lower court, which is expected to wait on the decision in the Slaughter case.
‘Egregiously Wrong’
During oral arguments, the government — represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer — urged justices to throw out Humphrey’s Executor, calling it “egregiously wrong from the start.” The administration argued that because agencies like the FTC exercise executive functions, their leaders must be subject to the president’s removal power, and modern realities make the old protections obsolete, according to multiple media outlets.
Conservative Justices Appear Receptive
Several of the Court’s conservative justices appeared receptive, the reports noted. Some questioned the viability of limiting presidential control over agencies and asked whether it made sense for multi-member commissions to be insulated from at-will dismissal.
One noted that rejecting those protections would not eliminate the agencies — a view underscored by the government’s argument that the structures Congress created remained intact regardless of removal rules, according to SCOTUS Blog.
The Liberal Counterpoint
Opposing those views, the Court’s liberal bloc, including Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned that eliminating removal protections would upend longstanding design choices for agencies meant to function independently of political swings, ABC News reported. They cautioned that doing so would give the president unfettered ability to reshape regulatory bodies — potentially replacing experts with loyalists and undermining the agencies’ mission to act impartially, the report added.
As the CU Daily has been reporting, lower courts — including a federal district court and a federal appeals court — had sided with Slaughter, ruling her firing unlawful and ordering her reinstatement, citing Humphrey’s Executor. But in September, the Supreme Court granted a stay of that order, allowing her removal to proceed while it reviews the case fully.
Independence in ‘Peril’
Legal observers say a ruling for the government could imperil the independence of nearly two dozen federal agencies — from consumer protection to labor, environmental and finance regulation — giving the president sweeping power to reshape the bureaucracy, Politico noted in its reporting.
Credit unions have expressed concerns that the direction of NCUA could shift with each new administration if the firing of Slaughter is upheld.
A decision is expected by June 2026.
