The Trump administration is once again asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a matter of importance, this time in a dispute over the removal of a Federal Trade Commission official, as the Washington Times reports.

The case centers on President Trump’s March decision to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, and it highlights the tension between presidential removal authority and the role of lower courts in handling emergency rulings from the Supreme Court.

On Thursday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer submitted a petition urging the justices to overturn a federal appeals court ruling that allowed Slaughter to reclaim her seat. He argued that lower courts were disregarding earlier Supreme Court actions in similar disputes.

Lower courts challenge White House decision

The controversy began in March, when President Trump dismissed Slaughter and another Democrat-appointed commissioner from the FTC. The move quickly faced legal challenges, with Slaughter contesting the action in federal court.

A district court sided with Slaughter, finding the dismissal unlawful. That ruling was later affirmed on Tuesday when a federal appeals court issued a 2-1 decision against the administration.

The appeals court went further by lifting a temporary order that had prevented Slaughter from regaining her position. This reversal marked a significant setback for Trump’s efforts to assert control over the commission.

Solicitor general pushes back

Sauer argued that the courts’ actions directly conflicted with Supreme Court precedent. He noted that the high court had already upheld Trump’s dismissals of officials from the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

“In this case, the lower courts have once again ordered the reinstatement of a high-level officer wielding substantial executive authority whom the President has determined should not exercise any executive power, let alone significant rulemaking and enforcement powers,” Sauer wrote in his filing.

The solicitor general emphasized that the repeated reinstatements undermined the president’s constitutional authority to remove executive branch officials, a power the administration has vigorously defended.

Emergency rulings under scrutiny

The situation also highlights broader questions about the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. Such rulings are often issued quickly, without full hearings or detailed opinions, and typically arise during early phases of litigation.

Trump’s legal team has repeatedly turned to the emergency docket to defend controversial personnel decisions. While the justices have granted several of those requests, the decisions have left lower courts uncertain about how binding the orders are.

Some legal scholars contend that emergency orders should not be treated as precedent. Others point to recent Supreme Court guidance encouraging lower courts to give them weight, creating confusion in cases like Slaughter’s.

Historical precedent shapes debate

The FTC’s independence has long been rooted in history. In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled in the noted precedent of Humphrey’s Executor that President Franklin D. Roosevelt could not dismiss a commissioner without cause, reinforcing the agency’s quasi-independent status.

That decision has remained a central touchstone in disputes over the commission’s autonomy. Trump’s removal of Slaughter, paired with the Court’s more recent leanings toward expanding executive authority, sets the stage for a significant test of that precedent.

The appeals court majority appeared to lean on Humphrey’s Executor in declaring the dismissal unlawful. In contrast, Sauer’s brief signaled the administration’s readiness to challenge the nearly century-old ruling’s relevance in modern governance.

What comes next?

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to accept the administration’s petition could reshape the boundaries of presidential power. A ruling in Trump’s favor would strengthen the executive branch’s authority over independent agencies.

On the other hand, a rejection of the appeal could reaffirm restrictions on unchecked presidential removals and maintain the traditional independence of regulatory commissions like the FTC.

For now, Slaughter remains in a precarious position, with her role subject to the high court’s intervention. The outcome will likely influence how future administrations navigate conflicts between executive control and agency autonomy.