The Supreme Court on June 29 upheld President Donald Trump's March 2025 firing of a Democratic Federal Trade Commission member, overturning a 91-year-old precedent. This decision consolidates executive power, allowing the president to remove leaders of independent agencies at will, a move critics say directly benefits corporate interests by dismantling oversight. Alvaro Bedoya, one of the fired FTC members, called the Supreme Court "a billionaire's fan club," stating it allows corporations to "hurt people and deny people their day in court."
The ruling fundamentally reshapes how more than a dozen federal agencies operate. It strips Congress of its power to limit presidential removals of agency heads, transferring that authority directly to the executive. This could impact bodies like the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), where Trump attempted to fire three Democratic commissioners in May 2025.
Consolidating Executive Power
President Trump, after taking office again in 2025, declared all federal agencies were under his control. In March 2025, he fired Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, the two Democratic members of the five-member Federal Trade Commission board. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt affirmed this stance on May 9, stating, "He has the right to fire people within the executive branch. It’s a pretty simple answer." This consolidation of power within the executive branch serves to streamline the state apparatus in service of capital, removing any perceived bureaucratic obstacles to corporate activity.
The court's decision in Slaughter expressly overturned Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 ruling that had upheld restrictions on presidential removal for leaders of multimember administrative agencies. This reversal marks the culmination of a 16-year process, as the court has been chipping away at the 1935 decision since 2010. Margot Cleveland, of counsel at the right-leaning NCLA, praised the decision as a "huge victory for our constitutional republic," ensuring federal agencies "remain answerable to the Executive—and in turn the American people who elected the President." This rhetoric masks the underlying shift of power towards unchecked executive control, often exercised on behalf of concentrated wealth.
The Cost to Working People
The Federal Trade Commission enforces antitrust and consumer protection laws across virtually every area of commerce. Its weakening directly impacts the working class, who rely on such agencies for protection against corporate fraud and predatory practices. Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of competition and market fairness at the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), warned that the decision risks "turning independent consumer protection agencies into political pawns." She added that when experts "charged with policing fraud, protecting competition, and standing up to powerful corporations can be removed at will, consumers lose an important safeguard against abuse."
The firings of three U.S. CPSC commissioners in May 2025 will likely stand following this ruling, according to consumer advocates. Courtney Griffin, director of consumer product safety at CFA, confirmed that the CPSC firings were tied to this case and will now be upheld. Griffin stated, "Today's decision does more than undermine one agency. It completely reshapes our government, and that includes the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the watchdog that guards against dangerous products that injure and kill." This reveals how the state, through its judicial branch, actively dismantles mechanisms designed to mitigate the worst excesses of capital, leaving the public vulnerable.
A Court for Capital
Alexandra Reeve Givens, president and CEO of left-leaning CDT, noted that Trump's "administration has made no effort to hide its desire to use the levers of government authority to strongarm and intimidate political enemies." She concluded that the Supreme Court "has taken down one of the key barriers stopping them." Bedoya's stark assessment that "the only people who will win from this ruling are the President's billionaire golfing buddies" underscores the class interests served by the court's decision. He concluded, "And at the Supreme Court, this is par for the course." The ruling exemplifies how the state's highest judicial body consistently acts to protect and expand the power of capital, often at the direct expense of the broader populace.