Trump v. Slaughter · ¶163

Even in more recent cases in which the Court has declined to “extend Humphrey’s to a ‘new situation,’” ante, at 20, the Court has underscored that Humphrey’s remains good law in its core application to multimember bodies like the FTC, see Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 215–218; Free Enter prise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 483 (2010). In Seila Law, for instance, the Court held that removal protections were incompatible with an agency headed by a single director (rather than a multi- member commission). 591 U. S., at 218–219. Even so, the principal opinion explicitly suggested that Congress could fix that problem by “converting” the single-headed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with all of the powers it possessed, “into a multimember agency” just like the FTC that Humphrey’s had addressed. 591 U. S., at 237 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J., joined by ALITO…

slip opinion, revised 7/07/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.