In the coming months, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases challenging the president’s attempts to remove the heads of independent agencies without regard for the limitations or procedures set forth by Congress. On December 8, 2025, the Court will hear argument in Slaughter v. Trump, a case challenging the removal of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission. And on January 21, 2026, the Court will hear argument in Cook v. Trump, a case challenging the removal of Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. In both cases, the Court will consider fundamental questions surrounding the scope of congressional versus presidential authority under the Constitution, the validity of long-standing Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency heads, and the role of federal courts in preventing unlawful removals.
Ahead of arguments, a diverse array of historians and legal scholars filed amicus briefs focused on history to support Slaughter and Cook. The Brennan Center has prepared this annotated guide to summarize each brief’s most prominent or unique points.
Brief of Professor Jane Manners in Slaughter v. Trump
This brief, filed by historian and member of the Brennan Center’s Historians Council on the Constitution Jane Manners, traces the robust history behind the three instances in which Congress allows the president to remove certain independent agency heads, such as Slaughter, from their positions: “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” — none of which the president cited in his attempt to fire Slaughter. The brief explores hundreds of years of common law and state law precedents, state legislative history, and congressional practice to argue that the provisions create a clear, workable standard that Congress can use to protect FTC commissioners from at-will removal by the president (i.e., removal based on mere policy differences) while still allowing the president to remove a commissioner for failing to faithfully execute the law, consistent with the framers’ constitutional plan. The Brennan Center and Friedman Kaplan Seiler Adelman & Robbins LLP are co-counsel for this brief.
Brief of Professors Andrea Scoseria Katz and Jonathan Gienapp in Slaughter v. Trump
Washington University School of Law Associate Professor Andrea Scoseria Katz filed this brief with historian and member of the Brennan Center’s Historians Council on the Constitution Jonathan Gienapp. The brief draws on a wealth of recent historical scholarship — including originalist scholarship — to counter arguments that the president possessed unfettered removal power in the early American republic. Rather, Gienapp and Katz explain that limits on the president’s removal power are firmly rooted in traditions stretching back to the nation’s founding. The brief further demonstrates that presidential removal was not treated as a settled feature of executive power under the Constitution, but instead as a management tool deployed by Congress to ensure an honest and effective administration. Kaplan Martin LLP is counsel for this brief.