{"id":28243,"date":"2025-12-26T20:50:04","date_gmt":"2025-12-26T20:50:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/?p=28243"},"modified":"2025-12-26T20:50:04","modified_gmt":"2025-12-26T20:50:04","slug":"supreme-court-oks-trumps-firing-of-biden-ftc-appointee-7","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cndailynews.store\/?p=28243","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court OKs Trump\u2019s Firing Of Biden FTC Appointee"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\"\"
\u00a0Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

This article may contain commentary
\nwhich reflects the author’s opinion.<\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant victory, ruling that he can remove Federal Trade Commission leader Rebecca Slaughter after months of legal challenges.<\/p>\n

Advertisement<\/div>\n

Trump has sought to dismiss Slaughter, a Democrat appointed by former President Joe Biden, since March. The court also agreed to consider whether presidents may dismiss FTC commissioners without cause.<\/p>\n

In the meantime, Slaughter will not be allowed to remain in office.<\/p>\n

The 6-3 decision Monday followed an earlier order by Chief Justice John Roberts blocking Rebecca Slaughter\u2019s reinstatement. Slaughter was one of two Democratic commissioners Trump dismissed in March, along with Alvaro Bedoya, who later dropped his legal challenge. Slaughter\u2019s seven-year term was set to run until 2029, making her the last Democratic appointee on the commission.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In July, a federal judge sided with Slaughter, citing the 1935\u00a0Humphrey\u2019s Executor v. United States<\/i>\u00a0ruling, which limited presidential authority over the FTC. Trump\u2019s Justice Department has argued that the president has the power to remove commissioners at will.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe president and the government suffer irreparable harm when courts transfer even some of that executive power to officers beyond the President\u2019s control,\u201d Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued.<\/p>\n

Advertisement<\/div>\n

The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 margin, agreed. The ruling signaled \u201cthe conservative majority is poised to overturn or narrow a 1935 Supreme Court decision that found commissioners can only be removed for misconduct or neglect of duty.\u201d<\/p>\n

That final decision is likely to come soon. The high court will hear oral arguments on the case this month.<\/p>\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Last week, the Supreme Court handed a major defeat to California\u2019s climate radicals, and even one liberal justice joined the conservative wing to make it happen.<\/p>\n

In a 7-2 ruling, the court\u00a0cleared<\/a>\u00a0the way for the state\u2019s energy producers to move forward with their lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, targeting California\u2019s extreme green energy mandates. At the heart of the case is the state\u2019s requirement that electric vehicles dominate the market by 2035, part of Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s plan to force California into \u201ccarbon neutrality.\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, made it clear these mandates are not just heavy-handed but potentially illegal.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe government generally may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders,\u201d Kavanaugh wrote.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn light of this Court\u2019s precedents and the evidence before the Court of Appeals, the fuel producers established Article III standing to challenge EPA\u2019s approval of the California regulations,\u201d he\u00a0added<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Kavanaugh also pointed out that the EPA has shifted its own legal arguments over time, a fact that did not help its case.<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cEPA has repeatedly altered its legal position on whether the Clean Air Act authorizes California regulations targeting greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles,\u201d he noted.<\/p>\n

The ruling comes on the heels of President Trump\u2019s decisive action earlier this month, when he signed three resolutions wiping out key parts of California\u2019s left-wing green agenda. The Trump administration\u2019s move was a massive blow to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential contender, and his push to transform the state into the most \u201cprogressive\u201d climate state in the country.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis case involves California\u2019s 2012 request for EPA approval of new California regulations,\u201d Kavanaugh explained in his decision. \u201cAs relevant here, those regulations generally require automakers (i) to limit average greenhouse gas emissions across their fleets of new motor vehicles sold in the State and (ii) to manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles as part of their vehicle fleets.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chet Thompson, president and CEO of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the group behind the lawsuit, hailed the ruling as a major victory.<\/p>\n

\u201cCongress did not give California special authority to regulate greenhouse gases, mandate electric vehicles or ban new gas car sales, all of which the state has attempted to do through its intentional misreading of statute,\u201d Thompson told the Daily Caller.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n