A few weeks ago, the Acting Solicitor General Sarah J. Harris in the Department of Justice sent a letter to Congress stating that DOJ will cease defending a legal decision that established the independence of three consumer and worker protection agencies in the federal government: the National Labor Relations Board; the U.S. Federal Trade Commission; and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. In response, the Chairman of the FTC, Andrew Ferguson, informed the press that he agrees with the sentiments expressed in the letter. This statement is alarming, but what followed was even more so: President Donald Trump then issued an Executive Order that improperly declares that his executive power grants him uncontestable authority over all executive branch officials and employees, particularly independent agencies like the FTC, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities Exchange Commission. This unprecedented power grab signals the Trump administration’s intention to implement unitary executive theory and sets the stage for Democratic commissioners to be fired. As President Trump has already attempted to illegally fire several people from their positions in the federal government, the aforementioned outcome is a real possibility that will have devastating impacts on competition and consumer protection in America.
The For-Cause Removal Standard
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) is a significant Supreme Court case that limits the president’s power to remove certain executive branch officials. It upholds limitations on the president’s removal power for commissioners of independent regulatory agencies, specifically the FTC. In the decision, the Court stated that the president must maintain unrestricted authority to fire appointees who are delegated executive power. The president’s ability to fire an FTC commissioner is restricted to being grounded in the following causes: inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. This decision granted the FTC independent status from the White House, and plays a huge role in making sure that the president’s power is not too concentrated and that independent commissions can enforce the law without political intimidation. While Humphrey’s has been subsequently narrowed by more recent cases it is still good law. Until the courts say otherwise, it should not be ignored.
Previous Challenges to the FTC’s For-Cause Removal Standard
Despite Humphrey’s remaining good law, the FTC’s for-cause removal status was just challenged in the courts. In fact, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to constitutional challenges to the FTC with its April 2023 ruling in Axon Enterprise v. FTC. The Court held that federal judicial courts have the right to oversee lawsuits that question the structure, procedure, or existence of the agency, notwithstanding existing authorities granted within the agency’s authorizing statute. This set the stage for Meta, in response to revisions sought by the FTC in a 2020 privacy-related enforcement order against the company, to file a complaint against the agency challenging its constitutionality, including its for-cause removal status. Despite this challenge, Judge Randolph Moss ruled that Meta’s arguments challenging the FTC’s constitutionality did not “implicate any fundamental constitutional liberties and, in any event… are foreclosed by controlling Supreme Court precedent.” In short, Humphrey’s is still good law, and remains the controlling precedent for removal proceedings for consumer protection agencies. Given the aforementioned executive order, I question whether the FTC can effectively fulfill its mission to protect consumers and encourage fair competition while the Trump administration challenges its independence.
Long-term Impact on Regulation
The challenges to Humphrey’s should not be a surprise – the case has long been a topic of legal discourse as many questioned whether limitations on the President’s executive power should center on the structure of an agency. But as Public Knowledge’s Legal Director John Bergmayer recently wrote, “A nebulous and broad understanding of the phrase ‘executive power’ cannot prevail over duly enacted statutes passed by Congress and signed into law by presidents of both parties, over the course of decades.” In other words, President Trump cannot continue to act outside of the boundaries of his executive power to assert his will over the institutions created by law to protect us.
In the wake of the lawsuit by Meta against the FTC, the Axon Enterprise decision definitely armed corporations with a shiny new tool for their anti-regulatory toolbox. It cleared the path for large corporations with nothing but time and money to file complaints that endeavor to undermine the power of executive agencies whose regulations threaten their bottom line. Beyond this, the actions of major corporations since President Trump re-entered office are not reassuring to consumers that their interests will be safeguarded against corporate abuse. Just a little over a month ago, Meta agreed to pay $25 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit filed by President Trump against the company after its social media platform, Facebook, lawfully suspended his accounts following the January 2021 attack on the Capitol. Reports of this large settlement arrived just a week after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerburg sat front row at the inauguration of President Trump along with several other billionaire tech CEOs. It’s also worth noting that Meta alone is subject to two ongoing enforcement actions by the FTC.
The Trump administration’s nomination of enforcement champions such as Gail Slater to DOJ and Mark Meador to the FTC have indicated that antitrust enforcement remains a priority. But President Trump’s executive order begs the question whether this administration seeks to undermine regulatory scrutiny. A bipartisan, independent commission offers balanced decision-making, broader subject-matter expertise and enforcement free of corporate and political influence. Should the Trump administration remove Democrat commissioners, this FTC may struggle with an unbiased review of mergers and balanced investigations of anticompetitive conduct at a time when market concentration and competitive concerns are at historic highs. The FTC under the Biden administration suffered this very critique when it pursued actions with a 3-0 Democrat majority, and such criticism was justified. The FTC’s enforcement actions are supposed to protect consumers like protecting children’s data, curbing the inappropriate use of biometric technology, and investigating anticompetitive conduct by quickly evolving market players – and it lacks perspective with a single-party majority. The FTC must conduct business as it was designed; as a bipartisan, independent agency that addresses ongoing consumer harms created by consolidated industries like price gouging, supply chain shocks, and overall product quality.
Chairman Ferguson will better gain the public’s trust with a full bipartisan commission. In fact, a strong argument exists not just for retaining a bipartisan, independent FTC, but broadly for strengthening the resources of the agency overall. Today’s markets, especially in technology, have grown increasingly sophisticated and require deep economic and technical knowledge to oversee effectively. To properly enforce regulations, agencies must be able to maintain sufficient staff levels, offer competitive compensation to draw and keep skilled experts, and have the means to pursue thorough investigations and legal actions. Given the growing intricacy of our economic environment, agencies require expanded resources and balanced, measured enforcement with a bipartisan commission to properly protect market competition and consumer interests. An agency under threat of losing its independence and multiparty engagement – including the FTC and many others – can’t do that, and it will be Americans who pay the price.