Humphrey's Eulogy: A Functionalist View of Trump v. Slaughter and the Role of the FTC

Trump v. Slaughter presents the Supreme Court with a foundational question about the administrative state: whether the for-cause removal protections afforded to Federal Trade Commission Commissioners under the FTC Act are consistent with Article II's vesting of executive power in the President, and, if not, whether Humphrey's Executor v. United States should be overruled. In March 2025, President Trump removed two FTC Commissioners without satisfying the statutory standard of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The dismissed Commissioners sued, and the District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in their favor, holding that Humphrey's Executor remains binding. The D.C. Circuit denied the Government's emergency stay, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Supreme Court should uphold the FTC's for-cause removal protections. Under a functionalist reading consistent with Morrison v. Olson and Wiener v. United States, the FTC's structure does not meaningfully impede presidential supervision—the President already exercises substantial influence through appointment, designation of the Chair, and coordination with the Department of Justice. Overruling Humphrey's Executor would unsettle ninety years of administrative law and override the sustained political consensus underlying the modern independent agency.