Former Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter used a virtual press conference Monday to press Congress into action, hours after the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 ruling that affirmed President Trump's authority to fire her, and dismantled 91 years of legal precedent in the process.

The decision overturned Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the 1935 landmark case that had shielded leaders of independent agencies from politically motivated removal by the White House. Slaughter, a Democratic appointee who was fired last year, framed the ruling not as a final defeat but as a starting gun for a different kind of fight, one she wants waged on Capitol Hill.

The Hill reported that Slaughter called on lawmakers from both parties to use their constitutional tools, the power of the purse and oversight authority, to check what she described as unchecked executive power. Whether Congress has the appetite for that fight is another question entirely.

What the ruling actually did

The conservative majority ruled that the president possesses broad constitutional authority to remove subordinates who exercise executive power. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion. The Washington Examiner reported that Roberts wrote the case was styled Trump v. Slaughter and that the decision rested squarely on Article II grounds.

Roberts was direct in his reasoning:

"To discharge the duties of his trust, the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust... Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people."

The six conservative justices held that Humphrey's Executor was wrongly decided. That 1935 case arose after President Franklin D. Roosevelt fired FTC Commissioner William Humphrey, a Calvin Coolidge appointee, for disagreeing with the New Deal agenda. The resulting Supreme Court decision established that Congress could limit a president's firing authority over agency heads performing "quasi-judicial" and "quasi-legislative" functions.

For nine decades, that framework defined the boundaries of presidential control over independent agencies. Monday's ruling erased it.

The decision was not a blank check, however. Breitbart reported that in a separate 5-4 ruling issued the same day, the Court rejected Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Chief Justice Roberts joined the three liberal justices and Justice Kavanaugh in that case, drawing a line between agencies like the FTC and the Federal Reserve.

That distinction matters. The Court expanded presidential removal power significantly, but stopped short of handing the White House authority over the central bank. The twin rulings, taken together, suggest the justices are drawing new boundaries rather than abolishing all of them.

Slaughter's response, and her ask

Slaughter wasted no time framing the ruling as a call to action for the legislative branch. During her Monday press conference, she laid out her case plainly:

"Listen, I think what we really need from Congress is for members on both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican, to reassert their constitutional responsibility to provide checks on an out of control executive, and they have powers to do so, including the power of the purse and the power of oversight."

She added that it was in "everybody's interest, whomever party you are from, for Congress to use that power, which it really has been neglecting."

The former commissioner also said the ruling does not "end the conversation" about the FTC's role in protecting consumers while maintaining political independence. If Congress declines to act, Slaughter said she hopes a future Democratic president will appoint commissioners who will "use the agency's authority to protect the American people from the cheating and lying by businesses that are taking advantage of them."

That last line reveals the real anxiety driving Slaughter's appeal. The ruling doesn't just affect her. It reshapes the relationship between the White House and every independent regulatory agency Congress has created, a structural shift that the Court's decision makes permanent absent new legislation.

Trump celebrates a constitutional win

President Trump praised the decision on Truth Social, calling it a "BIG WIN" and writing:

"It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers."

The New York Post reported that Trump had fired Slaughter and fellow Democratic Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya in March, citing their service as "inconsistent with the Administration's priorities." Those firings triggered the legal challenge that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

The president's celebration was not unfounded. The ruling affirms a principle conservatives have argued for decades: that the president, as the sole officeholder vested with executive power under Article II, must be able to remove subordinates who carry out that power in his name. Roberts put it plainly in the majority opinion: "Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one President... he is not impotent either. He and he alone is vested with the executive Power of the United States."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, disagreed sharply. She wrote that the power the majority granted the president was one "that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him."

The broader pattern of presidential authority

Monday's FTC ruling did not arrive in a vacuum. The Trump administration has pursued an aggressive posture on executive authority across multiple fronts. Earlier efforts to strip job protections from hundreds of HHS officials signaled the administration's broader intent to reassert White House control over the federal workforce.

Not every such effort has succeeded in the courts. Some federal judges have pushed back on administration actions, and the legal landscape remains contested on several fronts.

But the Supreme Court itself has handed Trump significant wins this term. The justices have delivered multiple 6-3 rulings backing the administration on issues ranging from immigration enforcement to executive authority. The FTC decision fits squarely within that pattern, a Court willing to revisit long-standing precedents when it concludes the original reasoning was constitutionally flawed.

Slaughter was appointed to the FTC in 2018 and later served as acting chair. Newsmax noted that the FTC enforces federal consumer protection and antitrust laws, functions that Congress designed the agency to perform with a degree of independence from the White House. The ruling's implications extend well beyond the FTC to other independent agencies that have operated under similar statutory protections for decades.

What Congress hasn't done

Slaughter's appeal to Congress carries an irony she may not have intended. For years, Congress has delegated vast regulatory power to executive-branch agencies precisely because it preferred not to make hard policy choices itself. Independent agencies became a convenient way for legislators to outsource controversial decisions, on antitrust enforcement, consumer protection, financial regulation, while avoiding direct political accountability.

The Supreme Court just reminded everyone that those agencies still sit within the executive branch. If Congress wants to protect their independence, it has the tools to do so. It can legislate. It can use its oversight authority. It can wield the power of the purse.

But doing so would require Congress to do what it has largely avoided: take responsibility for the regulatory state it built. Slaughter herself acknowledged that Congress "has been neglecting" its constitutional role. On that point, at least, conservatives and the former commissioner may find unexpected agreement.

The question is whether the broader legal battles over executive authority will push lawmakers to act, or whether they will continue to outsource governance to agencies and then complain when the president treats those agencies as part of his branch.

The real lesson

Slaughter wants Congress to check the executive. Fair enough. But the deeper problem she's describing, a Congress that has been "neglecting" its constitutional duties, didn't start with this ruling. It started when legislators decided it was easier to create independent fiefdoms than to govern.

The Supreme Court didn't seize power from Congress on Monday. It returned power to the president that the Constitution already assigned him. If Congress wants that power back, it knows where the floor votes are.

A republic works best when each branch does its own job. The Court just did its part. Now it's Congress's turn, and nobody should hold their breath.