Trump took our jobs Trump cant fire us, FTC Democrats tell court after being ejected from office "A President cannot remove an FTC Commissioner without cause," lawsuit says. Jon Brodkin Mar 27, 2025 4:55 pm | 34 Federal Trade Commission Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on July 13, 2023. Credit: Getty Images | The Washington Post Federal Trade Commission Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on July 13, 2023. Credit: Getty Images | The Washington Post Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreTwo Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission who were fired by President Trump sued him today, saying their removals are "in direct violation of a century of federal law and Supreme Court precedent.""Plaintiffs bring this action to vindicate their right to serve the remainder of their respective terms, to defend the integrity of the Commission, and to continue their work for the American people," said the lawsuit filed by Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya in US District Court for the District of Columbia.Trump last week sent Slaughter and Bedoya notices that said, "I am writing to inform you that you have been removed from the Federal Trade Commission, effective immediately." They were then cut off from their FTC email addresses, asked to return electronic devices, and denied access to their offices.There are legal restrictions on the president's authority to remove FTC commissioners. US law says any FTC commissioner "may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."The Supreme Court unanimously held in a 1935 case, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, that "Congress intended to restrict the power of removal to one or more of those causes." The case involved President Franklin Roosevelt's firing of Commissioner William Humphrey.Trump's Department of Justice has argued the ruling was incorrect, but it is still in effect. "Congress has continually relied on Humphrey's Executor, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to upset this landmark precedent," the Slaughter/Bedoya lawsuit said. "As Humphrey's Executor recognized, providing some protection from removal at the President's whim is essential to ensuring that agency officials can exercise their own judgment."The lawsuit continued:In short, it is bedrock, binding precedent that a President cannot remove an FTC Commissioner without cause. And yet that is precisely what has happened here: President Trump has purported to terminate Plaintiffs as FTC Commissioners, not because they were inefficient, neglectful of their duties, or engaged in malfeasance, but simply because their "continued service on the FTC is" supposedly "inconsistent with [his] Administration's priorities."Indefensible under governing lawIn addition to Trump, the lawsuit's defendants include FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak, and FTC Executive Director David Robbins. The Democratic commissioners asked the court to "declare the President's attempted removals unlawful and ineffective," and "permanently enjoin the FTC Chairman, Commissioner Holyoak, and the FTC Executive Director from taking any action that would prevent Plaintiffs from fulfilling their duties as Commissioners and serving out the remainder of their terms."Ferguson backed Trump last week, saying the president has "constitutional authority to remove Commissioners, which is necessary to ensure democratic accountability for our government."Trump's notices informing Slaughter and Bedoya of their firings "did not identify any 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office' to support Plaintiffs' removal, as the FTC Act requires," their lawsuit said. "Instead, tracking nearly word-for-word President Roosevelt's message to Humphrey, President Trump's message simply asserted: 'Your continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration's priorities. Accordingly, I am removing you from office pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution.'"Trump's message claimed that Humphrey's Executor "does not fit the principal officers who head the FTC today" because "the FTC exercises substantial executive power." Trump cited a 2020 Supreme Court ruling that said the for-cause removal precedent cannot be extended to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). But that ruling concerned "an independent agency led by a single Director and vested with significant executive power," not a multi-member commission, the lawsuit said.Moreover, the Supreme Court in its CFPB ruling "expressly declined to 'revisit' Humphrey's Executor, and, to the contrary, even suggested that Congress could 'convert[] the CFPB into a multimember agency' to remedy the constitutional issue identified in that case, i.e., by making the CFPB more like the FTC," Slaughter and Bedoya told the court."The President's action is indefensible under governing law," the lawsuit said.Jon BrodkinSenior IT ReporterJon BrodkinSenior IT Reporter Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry. 34 Comments