Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Slaughter that the president has the authority to unilaterally fire the head of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) without cause. This decision significantly increases the president’s authority over federal agencies, which before yesterday, were intended by Congress to be more independent from the Executive Branch. In making this ruling, the Supreme Court explicitly overruled the 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., where the Supreme Court had prevented President Franklin D. Roosevelt from firing the head of an agency without cause.
Why Did FTC Chair Rebecca Slaughter Bring this Lawsuit?
In this case, Trump fired the FTC chair, Rebecca Slaughter in January 2025 without a showing of “cause” to justify the termination, as required by FTC law. She challenged her termination, and that case finally reached the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, held that the FTC’s for-cause removal provision — which allowed commissioners to be fired only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” — violates the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. Thus, Trump had the right to terminate Slaughter immediately and without cause. She loses.
This outcome is not surprising after seeing the conservative justices’ May 2025 order granting cert (i.e., granting permission for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court) and hearing the oral arguments in December 2025. Those justices signaled that they would likely overrule Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. and grant more authority to the president over these federal agencies. The decision falls in line with the conservative court’s recent leanings towards granting greater executive power and immunity to the president. [Read more: Supreme Court Signals Support for Trump’s Authority to Fire NLRB Members]
What Does Trump v. Slaughter Mean For South Carolina Employees?
While employment cases don’t wind up with the FTC, my employment cases do have to go through several federal agencies for different employment claims that will be impacted by this new decision.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), for example, is the federal agency tasked with enforcing the federal anti-discrimination employment statutes, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (race, sex, national origin, religion), the ADEA (age), and the ADA (disability). [Read more: What is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission?] The EEOC’s five commissioners are appointed by the president, normally in staggered multi-year terms. However, unlike other agencies, the EEOC law says nothing about when and how a president can remove a commissioner. In January 2025, Trump fired two EEOC commissioners, who filed suit over the terminations. [Read More: EEOC Commissioner Fired by Trump Files Lawsuit Over Termination] That lawsuit has been placed on hold since June 2025 while we waited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Slaughter. After yesterday, the former EEOC commissioners’ lawsuits will likely be dismissed.
I also practice in front of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Most of the claims I file with the NLRB involved managers or owners ordering employees not to discuss discrimination or harassment complaints in the workplace. [Read more: Filing NLRB Claims in South Carolina] That type of order is blatantly illegal. A company cannot interfere with an employee’s right to discuss the terms and conditions of employment with co-workers. The NLRB enforces employees’ workplace rights to open communication through investigations and charges. Trump also fired a member of the NLRB in January 2025, and he did so without providing due process and showing malfeasance or neglect of duty by the member. However, under the Supreme Court’s Slaughter ruling, the for-cause requirement is unconstitutional, and her case will likely be dismissed. Trump has already appointed two new members to the NLRB, who were confirmed by the Senate and sworn in on January 7, 2026, which provided a full quorum to the NLRB.
Overall, I don’t expect there to be too much impact on the day-to-day operation of my employment cases and for my clients. The EEOC is already one of the most ineffective agencies, performing very little investigation on most charges and rarely filing any lawsuits. Enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws will continue to reside primarily with plaintiff-side employment attorneys–like me!–not with the EEOC.
We’ll still be able to file with the NLRB, and now that a quorum has been regained, hopefully the backlog of cases for trial will clear out or lessen. But most of these federal agencies get run by political appointees already, albeit typically those appointees get installed at a slower rate, due to staggered terms.
Each new election always brings about a change in personnel. I do anticipate that this “cleaning house” will now happen immediately and fully with every administration. We’ll also likely see more experts being replaced with political lackeys chosen for loyalty instead of competence. Again, this already happens, but it will be more frequent, I suspect.
The bigger takeaway from Trump v. Slaughter is less about the specific implications for employment law and more about how this ruling impacts the balance of powers between the three branches of government. The legislative branch created the federal agencies and delegated a great deal of rulemaking to the agencies. The agencies still fall under the executive branch though, and now, after this ruling, the direct authority of the president. I do wonder if we’ll see Congress begin to delegate less to the agencies, especially if the opposition party takes control of the House or the Senate in November.
In the meantime, if you have experienced discrimination or harassment in the workplace (based on age, race, sex, national origin, religion, or disability), or if your right to talk with coworkers about the terms and conditions of employment has been violated, please contact my office today at (864) 278-5389 or via the Contact Us page.
