The court upheld the constitutional validity of the FTC Act's for-cause removal protections, emphasizing their crucial role in ensuring independence. Judge AliKhan noted that precedent from the Humphrey's Executor case remains good law, and Congress has confirmed its stance by not altering those protections. The similarities between the current case and the 1935 case highlight how both instances involved presidential removals based on disagreements rather than lawful grounds for removal. Arguments suggesting a departure from existing precedent were dismissed as unfounded.
Without removal protections, that independence would be jeopardized... Accordingly, the Court held that the FTC Act's for-cause removal protections were constitutional.
The answer to the key substantive question in this case-whether a unanimous Supreme Court decision about the FTC Act's removal protections applies to a suit about the FTC Act's removal protections-seems patently obvious.
Humphrey's Executor involved the exact same provision of the FTC Act that Ms. Slaughter seeks to enforce here: the for-cause removal protection within 15 U.S.C. § 41.
The facts almost identically mirror those of Humphrey's Executor, as both Roosevelt's removal of Humphrey and Trump's removal of Slaughter cited disagreements in priorities.
Collection
[
|
...
]