���������

Democrat lawmakers have called on the US Supreme Court to intervene following President Trump’s "unlawful" firing of two commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The FTC is facing an uncertain future, following President Trump’s decision to fire two of its commissioners, both of whom are Democrats.

On Tuesday (March 18), Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya confirmed that they had received communications from President Trump informing them that they have been fired — a move that both say they will appeal.

Slaughter said the attempted dismissals violate the “plain language” of the FTC’s founding law, and violate Supreme Court precedent.

“The reason that the FTC can be so effective for the American people is because of its independence, and because its commissioners serve across political parties and ideologies,” she .

“Removing opposition voices may not change what the Trump majority can do, but it does change whether they will have accountability when they do it.

Does Trump have the authority to fire FTC commissioners?

The hiring and firing of FTC commissioners is governed by the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914.

The law states that the FTC is to be headed by five commissioners, each of whom are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Each commissioner serves a seven-year term, and no more than three commissioners can be of the same political party.

Once appointed, FTC commissioners can only be fired “for cause”, such as for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”.

It is not yet clear what “cause” President Trump has invoked to fire the two commissioners, but both Slaughter and Bedoya believe there is no cause that would warrant their dismissal.

“We are still commissioners,” Bedoya  on X. “We’re suing to make that clear for everyone.”

The Supreme Court precedent referred to by Slaughter is a 1935 ruling known as .

In this decision, the court found unanimously that the FTC Act is constitutional, and that the dismissal of former FTC commissioner William Humphrey was unlawful.

Humphrey was fired in 1933 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt due to policy disagreements, but the Supreme Court ruled in his favour two years later (albeit after Humphrey’s death).

Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project,  that President Trump’s firing of the two commissioners is a “blatant” violation of Humphrey’s Executor.

Crediting Humphrey’s Executor with “creating the modern independent administrative state”, Hepner referred to a key section of the Supreme Court opinion.

“We think it plain under the Constitution that illimitable power of removal is not possessed by the President in respect of officers of the character of those just named,” the justices wrote.

“For it is quite evident that one who holds his office only during the pleasure of another cannot be depended upon to maintain an attitude of independence against the latter's will.”

Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) is among the Democrats in Congress who agree with Slaughter’s and Hepner’s reading of the relevant statute and precedent.

“This is an abuse of power and a blatant attempt to undermine the law in order for Donald Trump to consolidate power for himself and his favored cronies,”  Reed.

“Removal of these FTC commissioners — solely because they are Democrats and not because they have done anything wrong — follows a pattern of this White House brazenly grabbing political power for itself.”

Reed, who serves as ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Subcommittee, which oversees funding for the FTC, said Trump appears to be betting on a “complaisant” Supreme Court to validate his decision.

“I hope the Court has some backbone, asserts itself as a co-equal branch of government, and affirms the 90 years of established legal precedent prohibiting Trump’s actions today,” he added.

FTC enforcement actions against payment firms

In recent years, the FTC has pursued several enforcement actions against major payments firms, including Western Union, MoneyGram and PayPal.

In 2017, Western Union entered a $586m  with the FTC and Department of Justice (DOJ), after pleading guilty to anti-money laundering (AML) failures and aiding and abetting wire fraud.

The FTC played a central role in coordinating $147m in refunds to more than 33,000 customers, who were found to have been defrauded due to Western Union’s failures.

In 2023, MoneyGram entered a  with the FTC and DOJ,  $115m to nearly 40,000 consumers who were defrauded via MoneyGram.

In 2018, PayPal  with the FTC over allegations that it misled users of its Venmo peer-to-peer (P2P) regarding their rights when making funds transfers.

Specifically, PayPal had told Venmo users that money credited to their Venmo balances could be transferred to external bank accounts, without adequately disclosing that the transactions were still subject to review and that funds could be frozen or removed.