Ketanji Brown Jackson Argues Presidents Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Fire Bureaucrats Running Independent Agencies — Justice Brett Kavanaugh Shreds Her Argument

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson vigorously defended the authority of unelected federal bureaucrats on Monday during oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, suggesting that presidents should not have unchecked power to remove experts from independent agencies.

At issue is President Donald J. Trump’s March decision to fire Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, both appointed by Democrats. Trump acted under Article II of the Constitution, which vests executive power in the President. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson emphasized the president’s authority:

“President Donald J. Trump is the head of the executive branch and is vested with all of the executive power in our government. I have no doubts about his constitutional authority to remove Commissioners, which is necessary to ensure democratic accountability for our government. The Federal Trade Commission will continue its tireless work to protect consumers, lower prices, and police anticompetitive behavior.”

Slaughter and Bedoya filed suit seeking reinstatement. In July, Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled in their favor, ordering Slaughter reinstated. The D.C. Circuit, with several Obama-era judges, upheld that decision, citing the 90-year-old precedent Humphrey’s Executor.

The Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to stay the lower-court order in September, allowing Slaughter’s removal to remain in effect while the case proceeds. The Court also agreed to hear the case in full, holding a two-hour oral argument on Monday.

During the hearing, Justice Jackson argued that presidents should have limited authority over scientists, economists, and other “experts” who serve on independent commissions. She contended that congressional intent protects the independence of these agencies from political influence, warning that excessive presidential control could undermine expertise-driven governance.

Jackson singled out several key areas where presidential authority should be restricted:

Transportation authorities
Economic regulators
The Federal Reserve
Multimember agency boards
Broad sectors of federal policymaking

https://

Ketanji lost it today during oral arguments and went on a “No Kings” style rant about President Trump wanting to rule like a monarch, and how we should instead have many issues handled by “the experts and PhDs” like Dr. Fauci, Dr. “Rachel” Levine, and the gay bondage AIDS dude. pic.twitter.com/Z8qFZgZzsR

— Bad Hombre (@Badhombre) December 8, 2025

She suggested that allowing presidents to replace experts with loyalists could threaten the public interest:

“Having a President come in and fire all the scientists, the doctors, the economists, and the PhDs, and replace them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything, is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.”

Jackson repeatedly stressed that congressional judgment on agency independence should take precedence over presidential authority, citing historical concerns about monarchy and the framers’ intent to prevent concentrated executive power.

https://

🚨 JUST IN: SCOTUS Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Sam Alito NUKE the “independent commission” scam, an apparent win for Trump

Their argument: Can Congress just make ANY Cabinet office an “independent commission,” thereby DESTROYING the presidency?

KAVANAUGH: “Independent agencies… pic.twitter.com/4dENQkZD56

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 8, 2025

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised a counterpoint, warning of potential abuses if a future administration deliberately fills independent agencies with officials who cannot be removed, effectively constraining a succeeding president:

“When both Houses of Congress and the President are controlled by the same party, they create a lot of these independent agencies or extend some of the current independent agencies into these kinds of situations so as to thwart future Presidents of the opposite party.”

Monday’s hearing highlighted a fundamental tension in U.S. governance: the balance between presidential authority and the independence of federal agencies. The Court’s ruling could have far-reaching implications for executive control over regulatory bodies.

original source