Rebecca Slaughter v. Donald Trump
25-5261
| D.C. Cir. | Jul 25, 2025Background
- Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, an FTC Commissioner, sued President Trump and FTC officials after being removed from her position.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Slaughter, enjoining her removal except for lawful causes specified by statute (15 U.S.C. § 41).
- The defendants (including President Trump) appealed and sought a stay of the court's order pending appeal in both district court and the D.C. Circuit.
- The D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay while considering the emergency motion, but the district court continued to consider the stay motion as required by procedure.
- This order denies the defendants' motion to stay, after evaluating the requisite four-factor test: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removal protections under 15 U.S.C. § 41 | Slaughter’s removal violates statutory protections and Humphrey’s Executor | Wilcox and related stays undermine continued validity of Humphrey’s Executor | Court holds Humphrey’s Executor still binding |
| Likelihood of Success on Appeal | Supreme Court has not overruled protections; Wilcox is not controlling | Wilcox signals likely reversal of removal protections for independent agencies | Defendants unlikely to succeed on appeal |
| Irreparable Harm | Defendants face no immediate or severe institutional harm by order | Continued service of removed commissioner threatens Commission’s balance | No irreparable harm shown by defendants |
| Public Interest and Equities | Maintaining lawful agency independence is critical | President should have full removal power for policy aims | Public interest favors compliance with law |
Key Cases Cited
- Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) (establishes limitations on presidential removal of FTC Commissioners)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (sets standard for granting stays pending appeal)
- United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557 (2001) (lower courts cannot overrule Supreme Court precedent)
- State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997) (explains role of Supreme Court in revisiting precedent)
- Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023) (reiterates lower courts must follow binding precedent)