REPORT: Rebecca Slaughter and the FTC — the 91-Year Precedent Trump Wants to Demolish

Introduction: An Email, a Dismissal, a Constitutional Earthquake

The moment everything shifted

On March 18, 2025, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the Democratic commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), learned she had been fired. Not in a solemn meeting, not even through an official phone call. She received an email informing her that her continued service was "incompatible with the priorities of the Trump administration." In a matter of seconds, a legal career built with rigor was swept away with a click. But what happened that day goes far beyond the fate of a single official: a 91-year-old precedent had just trembled on its foundations.

The Federal Trade Commission is one of the most emblematic independent agencies in the United States. It monitors competition, protects consumers, and tracks monopolies. Since 1935, its commissioners have enjoyed a legal protection: the president may only remove them for inefficiency, serious negligence, or malfeasance. This principle — and this is the crux of the problem — derives directly from a landmark Supreme Court ruling: Humphrey's Executor v. United States, decided unanimously nine decades ago.

A precedent Trump openly targets

It is no coincidence that the Trump administration chose this battleground. Since Donald Trump's return to power in January 2025, the White House has systematically attacked the independence of federal agencies. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC): their members have all been ejected without valid cause, explicitly defying existing jurisprudence. The dismissals of Slaughter and her Democratic colleague Alvaro Bedoya are part of this coherent and deliberate strategy to dismantle the American institutional order.

In Washington, legal scholars were quick to grasp the magnitude of the stakes. If the Supreme Court — now with a 6-3 conservative majority — decides to bury Humphrey's Executor, the entire system of independent agencies will potentially be subject to presidential whim. The Federal Reserve, the SEC, the FCC, the NLRB: all of these institutions could lose their constitutional shield.

1935: The Birth of a Constitutional Shield

William Humphrey, the commissioner Roosevelt wanted to remove

To understand what is at stake today, we must go back to 1933. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, freshly elected, wants to impose his economic reforms through the New Deal. He runs into an obstacle: William Humphrey, an FTC commissioner appointed by Coolidge, conservative by nature and hostile to Roosevelt's policies. Roosevelt invites him to resign, explaining that "the objectives of the administration can be carried out more effectively with personnel of my own selection." Humphrey refuses. Roosevelt fires him anyway, invoking no legal grounds. Humphrey dies a few months later — but his executor sues the government to recover unpaid salary.

In 1935, the Supreme Court delivers a verdict of unanimity, 9-0. Justice George Sutherland writes in the decision: the FTC is a body of experts created by Congress to perform "quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial" functions. It is not, in the proper sense, an arm of the executive. Therefore, Congress may legitimately protect its members from arbitrary removal. The ruling is clear: no dismissal may occur during a commissioner's legal term except for one of the grounds enumerated in the statute.

Nine decades of institutional protection

From 1935 to 2025, Humphrey's Executor structured the American administrative landscape. It enabled the emergence of a vast architecture of independent agencies: the SEC for financial markets, the NLRB for workers' rights, the FTC for competition, the FERC for energy. These institutions share a common DNA: they are bipartisan, composed of members appointed by both parties, protected from presidential whims to guarantee their neutrality. For 91 years, no president seriously attempted to bring down this wall.

The ruling survived contrary constitutional winds. In 2020, the Supreme Court weakened certain protections by allowing the president to dismiss the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — a single, non-collegial position — but had explicitly preserved the principle of multi-member commissions. In 2021, the Collins decision further narrowed the margins, but Humphrey's Executor remained the central reference. Until Trump came back.

The Dismissal: Brutal Simplicity

An email without cause, without procedure, without appeal

On March 18, 2025, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter learns of her dismissal through a notification. The email, sent by the Office of Presidential Personnel, states that her continued service at the FTC is "incompatible with the Administration's priorities." That is all. No mention of inefficiency. No allegation of negligence. Not the shadow of professional misconduct. Federal law is explicit: an FTC commissioner may only be removed for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." None of these conditions is met. The dismissal is illegal on its face.

Slaughter responds immediately and publicly: "The President has illegally removed me from my position as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, violating the very text of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent." Her colleague Alvaro Bedoya, the other Democratic commissioner fired the same day, was even more direct on social media: "I am a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. The President just illegally fired me. This is corruption, full stop." These words are not political rhetoric — they describe a documented legal reality.

The FTC reduced to a Republican shell

With the forced departure of Slaughter and Bedoya, the FTC is left with only two Republican commissioners. Commission chair Andrew Ferguson, appointed by Trump, quickly moved to support the legality of the firings and assured that the agency would continue its mission. But a bipartisan commission reduced to a monolithic bloc is no longer bipartisan. It becomes an instrument of a single political line. This is precisely what the 1914 law creating the FTC was designed to prevent — no party may hold more than three of the five seats.

The deprivation of quorum or pluralism is not a technical detail. The FTC monitors corporate mergers, investigates monopolistic practices, and imposes rules on digital giants. A politicized agency, subject to presidential directives, can no longer play the role of neutral arbiter. The entire mission of consumer protection and competition enforcement is at stake — not just the personal fate of one Democratic commissioner.

The Legal Battle: From Washington to the Supreme Court

Lower courts resist

Slaughter and Bedoya go to court the following day. On July 17, 2025, federal judge Loren AliKhan, of the federal district court of Washington D.C., rules in their favor. Her decision is unequivocal: the dismissal of Slaughter is "unlawful and without legal effect." The judge relies directly on Humphrey's Executor, which "controls this case in a binding manner." She orders Slaughter's reinstatement and forbids the other commissioners from obstructing the exercise of her functions. The Trump administration immediately announces its intention to appeal.

On September 2, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholds this decision by a vote of 2-1. Judges Patricia Millett and Nina Pillard are categorical: "The government has little chance of prevailing on appeal, given the binding and directly relevant Supreme Court precedent." Judge Neomi Rao — appointed by Trump — dissents, arguing that federal courts probably lack the power to order the reinstatement of an official dismissed by the president. The fault line is clear: on one side, existing law; on the other, the theory of an omnipotent executive.

The Supreme Court enters the scene

On September 4, 2025, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asks the Supreme Court to stay the reinstatement order on an emergency basis. On September 8, Chief Justice John Roberts grants an administrative stay. On September 22, the Court — by 6-3 — permanently stays the reinstatement order and agrees to take the case in full, on an expedited basis, for oral arguments in December 2025. The three progressive justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent. Kagan writes that the Court has "effectively overruled" Humphrey's Executor before even hearing arguments.

The framing the Court chose for the debate is telling: it asks the parties to address not only whether the FTC's statutory protections violate the separation of powers, but also "whether Humphrey's Executor v. United States should be overruled." By posing the question this way, the Court signals clearly that it is seriously considering going beyond merely resolving the Slaughter case — and detonating the precedent itself.

December 8, 2025: The Supreme Court's Grand Showcase

Questions that reveal convictions

On December 8, 2025, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter. Observers expecting feigned neutrality are disappointed. Chief Justice John Roberts calls Humphrey's Executor a "shriveled husk of what people thought it once was." He adds that the ruling "dealt with an agency that had very little, if any, executive power" — and that is perhaps why it had garnered such broad support at the time. His formulations are not those of a judge seeking to understand. They are those of a judge seeking to justify a conclusion already reached.

Solicitor General Sauer presses the Court to outright overrule Humphrey's Executor, arguing that Article II of the Constitution grants the president unconditional supervisory power over executive officers. Slaughter's attorney, Amit Agarwal, counters that overruling "a century of precedent at this late date" would be a "profound destabilization of institutions now inextricably woven into the fabric of American governance." Slaughter herself, present in the courtroom, observes the conservative justices appearing little troubled by this argument.

The systemic stakes: from the FTC to the Fed

What makes the case explosive is its potential scope. Humphrey's Executor protects not only FTC commissioners, but also those of the SEC, the FERC, the NLRB, the MSPB, the CPSC, and the EEOC. Looming in the background is the question of the Federal Reserve — whose governor Lisa Cook Trump attempted to fire in parallel. The Fed occupies a different constitutional position, and global financial markets reacted nervously to each development in this case. The signals sent by the Court in Trump v. Cook seem, for now, to want to preserve the independence of the central bank — but nothing is carved in stone.

The analysis by the law firm Troutman Pepper Locke is blunt: a ruling overturning Humphrey's Executor would be "a major earthquake for previously independent agencies in their functioning." This is not a trivial metaphor. It would be the most radical reorganization of the American executive branch since the New Deal — accomplished not through legislation, but through a judicial decision by nine unelected individuals.

The Unitary Executive Theory: Trump's Constitutional Weapon

A Reagan-era doctrine now in power

The Trump administration's central argument rests on the unitary executive theory: Article II of the Constitution provides that "the executive Power shall be vested in a President." Under this reading, the president must have full control over all officers who exercise executive power — and that control includes the right to dismiss them at will. This doctrine was not born with Trump. It emerged in the corridors of the Department of Justice under Reagan in the 1980s, carried by young conservative lawyers determined to recentralize executive power — among them a certain John Roberts, then Deputy Counsel at the White House.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia had argued alone for this thesis in a 1988 dissent (Morrison v. Olson), which his colleagues rejected 7-1. But conservative lawyers never abandoned this cause. Forty years later, this solitary dissent is on the verge of becoming majority doctrine. The Yale Journal on Regulation summarizes the stakes: if the president can remove independent agency heads at will, dozens of regulatory bodies — from the FTC to the SEC to the NLRB and FERC — lose their structural independence.

The constitutional critique: a theory "invented from whole cloth"

But the unitary executive theory, in its absolute form, is not without contradiction. Constitutional scholar Caleb Nelson, cited in the Brennan Center's analysis, notes that "the text and history of Article II are far more ambiguous than the current Court suggests." More precisely, the Take Care Clause — requiring the president to faithfully execute the laws — "does not imply that the president must be able to fire all executive officers at will, any more than it guarantees the right to imprison officers who refuse to do what he says." Logic has its limits.

Justice Elena Kagan stated it plainly during the December 2025 oral arguments: a ruling favorable to Trump "would place massive, unchecked, and uncontrolled power in the president's hands." This is not hyperbole — it is institutional arithmetic. A president who can fire without cause the heads of the SEC, the NLRB, the FTC, the FERC, and the EEOC controls de facto the regulation of financial markets, labor rights, competition, and energy. This is no longer an executive — it is an elective monarchy.

Rebecca Slaughter: The Face of an Institutional Fight

A career shaped by history

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter was born on August 6, 1981. A trained lawyer, she served as Senate legal counsel before being appointed FTC commissioner by Trump himself in 2018 — a detail the administration prefers to overlook. She is renominated by Biden in 2023 for a second term running through 2029. Her dismissal in March 2025 makes her the first FTC commissioner to be fired since 1933 — since FDR had tried to remove Humphrey. The historical loop is perfect, and evidently deliberate.

Slaughter recounted the moment of her dismissal with a precision that is chilling: she was at her neighborhood elementary school when the notification arrived. The next day, her access to FTC buildings was cut, her professional equipment deactivated. She nevertheless fought back — in court, before cameras, in newspaper columns. Her key phrase, repeated tirelessly: "The president is not above the law." She also warned: if a president can fabricate a fictitious reason to fire a protected official, then "for cause" protections have no real value whatsoever.

A woman who briefly reclaimed her office

After Judge AliKhan's ruling on July 17, 2025, Slaughter returned to her FTC office at 9 a.m. the following morning. She described the moment with quiet emotion: "It was really, really wonderful to be back." A few days later, the appeals court stays the ruling. She goes home. On September 2, the appeals court rules in her favor again. She returns. On September 8, Roberts stays again. On September 22, the Supreme Court ends her interim. Slaughter leaves — and this time, for good, at least until a final ruling.

This sequence of successive returns and expulsions illustrates the deeply political nature of the case. Legal battles swung according to institutional pressures, not stable principles. What Slaughter embodies today is less an individual case than a symbol: the rule of law's resistance against an executive that believes itself unlimited. Her fight has landed before the highest court in the country, where the outcome seems — alas — largely predetermined.

The Supreme Court and the Shadow of Politics

An ideologically reconfigured tribunal

The current Supreme Court is the most conservative in decades. With a 6-3 majority, it has already reconfigured jurisprudence on abortion (Dobbs, 2022), gun rights, administrative deference (the overturning of Chevron in 2024), and presidential immunity (Trump v. United States, 2024). In each case, the official reasoning was constitutional. In each case, the political result benefited the conservative agenda. Trump v. Slaughter follows the same pattern.

The Court's decision to accept the case on an expedited basis — certiorari before judgment, skipping the appeals court stage on the merits — is itself a signal. This is not normal procedure. This is not the approach of an uncertain Court wanting to let the judicial process unfold. It is the proactive intervention of a Court that wants to settle a question of principle it has already resolved in its own mind. Roberts' unilateral stay of September 8 — suspending Slaughter's reinstatement before the Court had even accepted the case — says much about the real intentions at play.

A decision expected before the end of June 2026

As of June 23, 2026, the decision has not yet been rendered — but it is imminent. According to the Minnesota Lawyer, the Federalist, and US News and World Report, the Court is expected to rule before the end of its term, set for late June or early July 2026. The closest observers — constitutional lawyers, SCOTUSblog analysts, Law Dork journalists — agree on one point: the conservative majority will very likely overturn Humphrey's Executor, or decisively weaken it. The questions posed by Roberts and the other conservatives during the December arguments leave little doubt about the outcome.

What remains uncertain is the scope of the reversal. The Court could limit itself to saying that the current FTC — which exercises more executive functions than in 1935 — no longer falls under Humphrey's protection, without formally overturning the precedent. Or it could go all the way and invalidate the entire doctrine. The second option would be catastrophic for all independent agencies. The first would be a tactical victory for Trump — but would open the door to a progressive neutralization, agency by agency.

Independent Agencies: What Do They Really Do?

An architecture designed to resist political pressure

The logic of independent agencies rests on a simple principle: certain regulatory decisions are too technical and too sensitive to be left to the political cycle. The FTC decides whether a merger between two tech giants is anticompetitive. The SEC decides whether an investment bank manipulated markets. The NLRB arbitrates disputes between employers and unions. These decisions have massive economic consequences, and their direct beneficiaries often have the ear of the White House. Hence the necessity of an institutional wall: commissioners with fixed terms, removable only for serious misconduct, accountable not to the president but to Congress and the public.

This model is not perfect. Agencies have their biases, their blind spots, their bureaucratic drift. The conservative critique that they constitute an unelected and unaccountable "deep state" is not entirely without merit. But the answer to these drifts is not to subject them to executive direction — it is to reform them through legislation, with congressional approval. Giving the president the power to fire any regulator who inconveniences his billionaire friends is not reform. It is capitulation.

The dominoes that could fall

If Humphrey's Executor is overturned in its entirety, the list of potentially vulnerable agencies is dizzying. The FERC regulates energy. The NLRB protects union rights. The CPSC monitors consumer product safety. The EEOC enforces anti-discrimination laws. The MSPB protects civil servants from arbitrary dismissal. All of these bodies share one characteristic: they have sometimes made decisions against the interests of large companies close to Republican power. With a president able to purge them at will, this independence disappears.

The only exception the Court seems to want to preserve concerns the Federal Reserve — and only because global financial markets would deliver their verdict immediately if Fed independence were compromised. This is an extraordinary admission: the Supreme Court of the United States would be prepared to make a constitutional exception for the central bank not on legal principle, but out of fear of market reaction. If that is the Court's constitutional compass, one understands why observers speak of a "pro-business" rather than pro-Constitution Court.

The 91-Year Precedent: Why This Number Matters

Duration as a constitutional argument

In American law, the age of a precedent is not without significance. The principle of stare decisis — respecting past decisions — rests on a simple idea: legal stability is a value in itself. Individuals, businesses, and governments organize their behavior on the faith of existing rules. Overturning a 91-year-old precedent means not only changing the law — it means shaking confidence in the permanence of law itself. Authors in the Yale Law Review and Harvard Law Review have devoted entire articles to the impact of this reversal on stare decisis doctrine.

More precisely, in cases of precedent reversal, the Supreme Court has traditionally required "exceptional circumstances" — a change in social or economic facts, a practical impossibility of maintaining the rule, a clearly demonstrated error. Yet in the Slaughter case, none of these criteria is genuinely met. Independent agencies function. The FTC fulfills its role. It is not the jurisprudence that has proved unworkable — it is a president who does not want independent agencies.

The slow death of a shield

Analyst Chris Geidner of Law Dork describes the possible destruction of Humphrey's Executor as "breaking the dam that enabled expertise in government as the federal government grew and became more complex — in economics, but also in science, health, and safety." This is a precise formulation. Independent agencies are not unpredictable bureaucratic outgrowths. They are the institutional response to the growth of the federal state since the New Deal — a response designed to maintain expertise and continuity across political alternations.

The website Brown Goldstein Levy published an analysis titled "Humphrey's Executor and the Quiet Death of Stare Decisis" (September 2025), pointing out that the Court had already, in practice, treated the precedent as dead before formally burying it. By allowing Trump to fire Slaughter on the emergency docket while Humphrey's Executor was still the law in force, the Court signaled: the rule no longer means anything, even if we have not yet formally abrogated it. This is a way of governing by circumvention that deserves to be named for what it is.

Europe and the West: What This Case Tells Us

Independent institutions, the backbone of democracies

What is happening in the United States is not an American anomaly. It reflects a powerful trend striking several Western democracies: the questioning of independent institutions by executives claiming a "popular mandate." In Hungary, Orbán has subdued the media, courts, and regulatory authorities. In Poland, the Duda government had undertaken to subject the judiciary to the executive before the trend reversed. In Turkey, Erdogan has carried out massive purges in institutions since 2016. The common thread is the same: independent institutions are presented as obstacles to the will of the people, when they are precisely what protects citizens from abuses of power.

The West must remain the center of the world not because it is ethnically or culturally superior, but because it embodies — still, imperfectly — a model of governance based on the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the independence of oversight institutions. When the United States, the pillar of this edifice, begins to chip away at these principles, it is the entire credibility of the Western model that weakens — in the face of Russia, China, and the authoritarian regimes watching for the slightest crack.

Trump: a necessary evil attacking the foundations

Donald Trump is a political reality with which the West must contend. His firmness on certain issues — pressuring NATO so that Europeans assume their own defense, his commercial intransigence with China — responds to genuine needs. But there is a limit to what a democracy can tolerate in the name of political efficiency. When a president breaks independent institutions not to correct their dysfunctions but to bend them to his wishes, he is no longer governing a democracy. He is hollowing it out from within.

America's allies watch this sequence with growing anxiety. The European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan: all of these nations have built their relationships with Washington on the basis of a certain American institutional stability. A White House that controls the FTC, the SEC, the NLRB, the CPSC, and potentially the Fed is no longer a predictable partner — it is a centralized entity whose economic and regulatory decisions depend on a single person.

The Dissents: The Voices That Resist

Elena Kagan, sentinel of the law

In this case, the dissents of the progressive justices deserve to be quoted at length, for they articulate with precision what overturning Humphrey's Executor would mean. Elena Kagan, one of the Court's most rigorous jurists, wrote in dissent during the September 22, 2025 order that the Court had "effectively overruled" the precedent by allowing Trump to fire Slaughter before even hearing arguments. She described agencies like the FTC as "classic independent commissions: bipartisan, with staggered terms, protected against removal without cause." By using the emergency docket to circumvent existing law, the majority had "handed the president complete control of all those agencies."

During the December oral arguments, Kagan pushed the logic to its conclusion: if the president can fire any commissioner at will, he can fire the FBI director, the DEA chief, administrative law judges — all those who exercise an "executive" function. She called this "massive, unchecked, and uncontrolled power in the president's hands." Her colleagues Sotomayor and Jackson joined her dissents at every stage.

Jurists and organizations pushing back

Beyond the Court, resistance has organized. The Brennan Center for Justice published detailed analyses of the unconstitutionality of the dismissal, invoking Benjamin Franklin's warning that the executive would grow until it "ends in a monarchy." The Economic Policy Institute documented, day by day, the impact of dismissals on the effective functioning of the affected agencies. Dozens of constitutional lawyers — among the most eminent at American universities — filed amicus briefs supporting the preservation of Humphrey's Executor. The challenge is academically and legally solid. But in the current configuration of the Court, it is not sufficient.

The Practical Consequences: Who Loses What

Workers, consumers, markets

If Humphrey's Executor is overturned or severely weakened, the practical consequences go beyond constitutional theory. The FTC can no longer freely investigate Big Tech practices without fearing a presidential purge. The NLRB can no longer arbitrate labor disputes without being subject to White House pressure. The CPSC can no longer pull dangerous products from the market if their manufacturer is a presidential ally. These scenarios are not hypothetical — they follow mechanically from the logic of absolute presidential control.

For American workers, this means the end of a neutral arbiter in disputes with employers. For consumers, the end of an agency that can pursue Amazon or Google without looking over its shoulder. For financial markets, it means — with the possible exception of the Fed — the introduction of permanent political uncertainty into every regulatory decision. Foreign companies, institutional investors, and international trade partners will now have to factor in a new variable: American regulation can change with presidential moods.

A precedent for would-be authoritarians

The geopolitical impact of this reversal must not be underestimated. Authoritarian regimes — Russia, China, Iran, North Korea — observe the health of Western democracies with close attention. Every time a democracy frees its executive from institutional oversight, it implicitly legitimizes regimes that have always claimed the separation of powers is bourgeois fiction. A Putin or a Xi Jinping needs no great speeches — they merely need to point to Washington and say: "Look, they do it too."

It is in this context that Trump v. Slaughter takes on its global dimension. It is not merely a question of whether a Democratic commissioner can remain in her post until 2029. It is a question of whether the United States — the world's oldest democracy, guarantor of liberal institutions since 1945 — will send the signal that an elected president can dissolve his own government's institutional counterweights on no other justification than his will. That is the signal our adversaries have been waiting for.

Conclusion: The Rule of Law on the Edge of the Precipice

A vote that will define a generation

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter, expected before the end of June 2026, will be one of the most important in recent American constitutional history. More important than Dobbs, perhaps — because it touches not on an individual right but on the very structure of the federal government. If the six conservative justices choose to bury Humphrey's Executor, they will topple the architecture of independent agencies built since the New Deal. They will give the American president an unprecedented power of control over the regulation of the economy, labor, environment, and financial markets since 1935. And they will retroactively legitimize decades of ideological construction of a theory — the unitary executive — that was never approved by Congress or the American people.

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter fought with tenacity and dignity. She won at the district court. She won at the appeals court. She lost at the Supreme Court — not because her case was weak, but because the Court decided, before even hearing arguments, to let Trump act. She summed up the stakes with remarkable clarity: "I was the first FTC commissioner to be removed since 1933. FDR had tried and the Supreme Court, unanimously, said it was illegal." That unanimity belongs to the past. What comes next belongs to the history we are living.

What the West must take from this

Europe, Canada, and allied democracies must draw a lesson from this sequence: the independence of institutions is not defended only by constitutional texts. It is defended by permanent political vigilance, by a civic culture that penalizes institutional violations, by judges who resist even under pressure. When these three pillars weaken simultaneously, precedents of 91 years no longer hold. Democracy is not a stable state — it is a dynamic equilibrium that demands continuous effort. The Slaughter case reminds us that this effort can fail, even in the world's oldest democracy.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary sources

Trump v. Slaughter — Oyez, transcript of oral arguments, December 8, 2025

Trump v. Slaughter: full explainer — SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe, December 3, 2025

What Humphrey's Legacy Protects — The Regulatory Review, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, March 2, 2026

Secondary sources

"It Ends in a Monarchy" — Brennan Center for Justice, Jesse Wegman, May 26, 2026

Supreme Court poised to demolish 91-year precedent — Esquire, Charles P. Pierce, June 16, 2026

June 2026: The Supreme Court faces Trump — Law Dork, Chris Geidner, June 1, 2026

Supreme Court temporarily allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner — The Guardian, September 22, 2025

Supreme Court poised to overturn 90 years of precedent — NPR, December 8, 2025