Trump v. Slaughter: SCOTUS to Overturn Humphrey’s Executor?

Happy Holidays! I’m coming to you with an update on the Trump v. Slaughter oral arguments — yes, another big case to keep an eye on. For those who haven’t been following closely, this case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and could impact the Harper v. Bessent litigation that our industry has been watching.

The outcome of Trump v. Slaughter will determine whether the case brought by former NCUA Board Members Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka is considered moot—or if it can move forward and potentially lead to their reinstatement. So, without further ado, let’s break down what we know so far.

What are the facts? 

Earlier this year, former President Trump removed Rebecca Slaughter from her position as a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Slaughter was originally nominated by Trump in 2018 and renominated by President Biden in 2023 for a term set to run through 2029.

When she was dismissed, the email informing her cited that her continued service would be “inconsistent with the Administration’s priorities”—but offered no legal justification. Slaughter challenged her removal, eventually filing a lawsuit arguing that her termination violated the FTC Act and the precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor, which requires cause for removal from the FTC. In short, Slaughter is questioning the president’s authority over independent federal agencies and is seeking reinstatement.

Who is Humphrey and what does his executor have to do with this?

If you didn’t go to law school or don’t moonlight as a Supreme Court history buff, you might be wondering the same thing. Here’s the quick version:

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to remove FTC Commissioner William Humphrey before his term was up. Humphrey refused to resign, and Roosevelt ultimately fired him. Humphrey passed away shortly afterward, and his estate sued the government to recover the remainder of his salary — hence the case name Humphrey’s Executor.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the President may only remove FTC commissioners “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” This established the precedent that presidents cannot remove leaders of independent agencies at will, preserving the separation of powers.

Now, with Slaughter removed from the same agency—without a stated legal cause—the precedent from Humphrey’s Executor is directly in play. If SCOTUS decides to overturn that precedent, it would mark a dramatic shift in presidential authority and dismantle nearly 90 years of constitutional protection for independent agencies.

So how does this have the potential to impact Harper v. Bessent? 

Here’s where it gets especially relevant to our world.

Both Trump v. Slaughter and Harper v. Bessent involve the president’s authority to remove individuals from independent regulatory boards. Both cite Humphrey’s Executor as a central piece of legal precedent.

If the Court overturns Humphrey’s Executor, the case brought by former NCUA Board Members Harper and Otsuka would likely become moot—meaning they would not have grounds to seek reinstatement. However, if the Court upholds the precedent, Harper and Otsuka could proceed with their case and potentially return to the NCUA Board.

In other words, a lot is riding on this decision — not just for Harper and Otsuka, but for other agency heads removed under similar circumstances.

What do we know so far? 

SCOTUS heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter last week. As expected, the Government argued for overturning Humphrey’s Executor, calling the existing precedent a barrier to democratic accountability that created a “headless fourth branch” of government — agencies insulated from both Congress and the White House.

They argued that the President should have unrestricted authority to remove agency leaders who exercise executive power.

Attorneys for former Commissioner Slaughter pushed back, emphasizing that independent agencies have historically been shielded from political influence to preserve impartiality. They argued the President should not hold “illimitable power to fire heads of agencies,” particularly when those agencies operate independently by design.

We’ll continue to monitor this case closely, though a final decision isn’t expected until June 2026.

To sum it up…

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter will have direct implications for Harper v. Bessent — and possibly reshape the balance of power between the Executive Branch and independent agencies. If SCOTUS overturns Humphrey’s Executor, the case brought by Harper and Otsuka likely ends there. But if the precedent stands, they may still have a path back to the NCUA Board.

We’ll be watching this closely in 2026 and keeping you informed.

As always, this article is intended for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about this topic and/or possible implications, you should contact your attorney for advice. 

I just wanted to take a moment to let you know that this is the last “Take a Second” for 2025. I cannot wait to dive in and break down more legal topics with you in 2026. Hope to see you next time!

« Return to "Take a Second CU Legal Insights"