\n<\/p>\n
For the better part of the second Trump presidency, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter has been in court, fighting to get her job back. Last March, Donald Trump<\/a> fired her without cause from her Senate-appointed role as a member of the Federal Trade Commission, violating federal law and the nearly century-old precedent that gave rise to modern independent agencies\u2014which empowers Congress to insulate their leaders and expertise from political pressure and corruption.<\/p>\n Lower courts agreed<\/a> with her view of the law, briefly reinstating her a couple of times, but the Supreme Court had other ideas. And last month, in Trump v. Slaughter<\/a>,<\/em> its conservative supermajority ruled against Slaughter by overruling that precedent, and, in the process, declared that lawmakers\u2019 decisions to shield officeholders like her from the whims of the president was unconstitutional. Writing for the court\u2019s Republican-aligned justices, Chief Justice John Roberts<\/a> reasoned that \u201cSlaughter served as the President\u2019s subordinate at the FTC,\u201d and thus he \u201cwas entitled to cut her tenure short.\u201d<\/p>\n The landmark decision, which will shape the future of American governance in everything from how to best safeguard public health to protecting against the concentration of corporate power, nonetheless doesn\u2019t touch the biggest independent agency of them all: the Federal Reserve. To Slaughter and many others, this carveout doesn\u2019t make sense and exposes the weakness in Roberts\u2019s reasoning. \u201cThere are different rules for Wall Street than there are for Main Street,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n On a more personal level, being the face of a constitutional showdown was, in her words, \u201cnot fun.\u201d She couldn\u2019t work, her agency staff was left in a state of limbo, and more than once she wallowed and thought about walking away. \u201cI don\u2019t even play a small violin for myself,\u201d Slaughter says. But she decided to stay the course, refusing to let the administration and the Supreme Court<\/a> destroy an institution and principles she cares about \u201cwith my permission.\u201d<\/p>\n In this interview with Vanity Fair,<\/em> Slaughter spoke at length about her decision to take the president to court, how she and others at the FTC experienced various states of joblessness, and why, in the end, this battle royale to resist executive control had nothing to do with her but everything to do with being accountable to the people she serves.<\/p>\n This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.<\/em><\/p>\n When Donald Trump fired you<\/a>, his letter to you said, \u201cYour continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration\u2019s priorities.\u201d Knowing what you know now about the current administration, what do those words mean to you?<\/strong><\/p>\n In one way, I think they were pretty empty and meaningless, right? It is not a detailed reason or policy disagreement or allegation that the statute<\/a> provides for reasons an FTC commissioner could be terminated, which are inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance. So it was just a way of saying, \u201cI don\u2019t like you.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n