17. Department of Justice · Major
Seek to overturn Humphrey's Executor v. United States
Printed page 560 17. Department of Justice
“One example includes potentially seeking the overruling of Humphrey's Executor v. United States. … The next conservative Administration should formally take the position that Humphrey's Executor violates the Constitution's separation of powers.”
Printed again in Chapter 30.
Printed page 873 30. Federal Trade Commission
“The Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey’s Executor upholding agency independence seems ripe for revisiting—and perhaps sooner than later.”
What has happened
- Done
Trump v. Slaughter: the Court (6-3, Roberts, C.J.) held the FTC's for-cause removal protection unconstitutional and overruled Humphrey's Executor v. United States.
- Attempted
In the FTC case the Court stayed the district court's reinstatement of Commissioner Slaughter, granted certiorari before judgment, and directed the parties to brief whether Humphrey's Executor should be overruled (No. 25-332).
- Attempted
The Supreme Court stayed the orders reinstating Wilcox and Harris, finding the government likely to show that the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power, while reserving whether Humphrey's Executor would be overruled.
- Attempted
The administration removed NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris without cause and defended the removals by arguing that for-cause protections for such officers are unconstitutional; the D.D.C. rejected that position and reinstated Wilcox (Harris on 2025-03-04). The removals of FTC commissioners Slaughter and Bedoya followed in March 2025.
Research log
What was searched, and what didn’t count as evidence
Research notes
- The administration’s formal statement of position — the Acting Solicitor General’s February 2025 letter to Congress announcing that DOJ would no longer defend the FTC commissioners’ removal protections and would ask the Court to overrule Humphrey’s Executor — was not located on an allowlisted page; the 2025-03-06 D.D.C. opinion, which records the government’s argument, is used instead. If the letter is found (senate.gov or justice.gov), add it as Evidence to the first event and re-date it.
- Related dockets (CourtListener, 403 — leads): Wilcox v. Trump D.D.C. 1:25-cv-00334 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69612129/wilcox-v-trump/), Harris v. Bessent 1:25-cv-00412 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69631849/harris-v-bessent/), Slaughter v. Trump 1:25-cv-00909 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69801190/slaughter-v-trump/), D.C. Cir. 25-5057 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69714705/gwynne-wilcox-v-donald-trump/). Readable intermediate opinions not used as Evidence: D.C. Cir. en banc orders of 2025-04-07 and the merits opinion of 2025-12-05 (https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/12/25-5037_25-5057.pdf), and Slaughter v. Trump D.D.C. 2025-07-17 (https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2025cv0909-51).
- Chapter 30’s separate FTC asks are tracked by that Chapter’s agent; this Recommendation owns the Humphrey’s trail for both citations.
- Action
- other
- Object
- Humphrey's Executor v. United States
- ID
- 1561