Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES—Ogletree Deakins’ Practical NLRB Advisor looks at how a major Supreme Court decision concerning the FTC could reshape how the NLRB operates, (Sep 10, 2026)

By JoAnn Petaschnick, Co-Editor

While the ruling was about the FTC, the NLRB is similar in structure and in protection against member removal.

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332, holding that the FTC for-cause removal provision violates the separation of powers required by the U.S. Constitution. The Court stated that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) performs executive functions, and thus its commissioners are removable by the president at will, resolving the question definitively: the President may remove FTC Board members for any reason—or no reason.

In the Summer 2026 issue of the Practical NLRB Advisor, attorneys in the Ogletree Deakins’ Traditional Labor Relations Practice Group explain how the Slaughter case involves a situation early in President Donald Trump’s second term, when the President removed Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from her position as a commissioner of the FTC because, in the President’s view, “her service was not consistent with the administration’s priorities.” This reasoning flouted the statutory removal protection afforded FTC commissioners who, under the enabling statute, were subject to removal only because of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.” None of these reasons applied to Slaughter, however; she was removed simply because her actions and views did not align with those of the President.

Slaughter sued, asking to be restored to her former office, contending that her removal violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution. The district court granted her motion for summary judgment.

The case then went to the Supreme Court where the Court held in a 6-3 decision that the kind of job protection sought by Slaughter was unconstitutional, as stated above.

What does this have to do with the NLRB? While the ruling was about the FTC, the NLRB is similar in structure and in protection against member removal. The Court’s reasoning in Slaughter suggests agencies exercising significant executive authority may no longer be able to shield their leaders from presidential removal.

With this decision, the Court overturned the precedent that previously shielded independent agencies since the New Deal, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States 295 U.S. 602 (1935). The majority left no doubt about its position, stating: “If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

Also in this issue: Recent court decisions with the theme of limiting the authority of federal agencies like the NLRB and increasing judicial scrutiny of their activity are becoming more prevalent. Several of those cases are discussed in this issue’s lead article as well as the Legal Developments section.

MainStory: AgencyNews SupremeCourtNews WhiteHouseNews LaborNews UnionsMembers RemediesDamages Discharge PublicEmployees Procedure LitigationNewsTrends IndustryNewsTrends FederalLegislation IndividualRights StateLegislation Bargaining