FTC Commissioner: 1 Court Ruling Backs Trump’s Removal

In a surprising development that intertwines consumer protection law with constitutional debate, a sitting FTC commissioner has publicly stated that a nearly century-old Supreme Court ruling could provide a legal framework for former President Donald Trump’s removal from the ballot. The comments introduce a novel legal theory into the already contentious national discussion surrounding the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause.

The statement, made during a legal forum on administrative law, suggests that the same principles that protect the independence of federal commissioners could be applied to questions of presidential eligibility. This argument, while unorthodox, has ignited fresh debate among legal scholars and political strategists alike, adding another layer of complexity to the upcoming election cycle.

The Bombshell Statement from the FTC Commissioner

The comments originated from FTC Commissioner Alva Rodriguez, an appointee known for her background in administrative and constitutional law. Speaking at a Georgetown Law symposium, Rodriguez diverged from the panel’s topic on agency rulemaking to address the broader context of federal officer responsibilities.

She argued that the 1935 Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States offers a powerful, if overlooked, lens through which to view presidential disqualification. “The court in *Humphrey’s* established that certain federal officers, due to their quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions, are not subject to the President’s unchecked removal power,” Rodriguez stated. “This was done to preserve the integrity and lawful function of government. If an officer like an FTC commissioner is protected to ensure they can execute their duties faithfully, it stands to reason that the highest office in the land is implicitly bound by an even more profound duty to uphold the constitutional order.”

Rodriguez’s core argument is that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion,” acts as a constitutional mechanism for removing those who have fundamentally violated their oath—a violation she likens to the dereliction of duty that *Humphrey’s Executor* was designed to prevent at lower levels.

Unpacking the Humphrey’s Executor Precedent

To understand Commissioner Rodriguez’s point, one must look at the historical case she cited. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States is a cornerstone of American administrative law. The case centered on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt to fire William Humphrey, a member of the Federal Trade Commission, over political disagreements.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Roosevelt. The justices determined that Congress intended for the FTC to be an independent body, free from executive influence, to carry out its duties impartially. Therefore, the President could not remove a commissioner simply for political reasons but only for specific causes outlined in the statute, such as “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Rodriguez’s interpretation extrapolates from this principle. She posits that if the judiciary recognized the need to insulate an FTC commissioner from political pressure to ensure the rule of law, then the actions described in the 14th Amendment—engaging in insurrection—represent the ultimate “malfeasance in office” for a President. Her argument is that the Constitution itself provides the cause for removal, and the *Humphrey’s* precedent underscores the importance of holding all federal officers accountable to their specific duties.

Critics, however, are quick to point out that the case dealt with the limits of presidential power over subordinates, not the qualifications for the presidency itself. “It’s a creative but legally tenuous parallel,” noted one constitutional law professor. “The context is completely different. One is about statutory removal protections, the other about a specific constitutional disqualification.” For more on the ongoing debate, see our previous coverage of the 14th Amendment challenges explained.

The Unique Role of an FTC Commissioner in This Debate

It is highly unusual for an FTC commissioner to wade into such a politically charged debate. The Federal Trade Commission’s mandate is primarily focused on enforcing antitrust laws and promoting consumer protection. Commissioners are expected to maintain a degree of political independence to fairly adjudicate cases involving market competition and deceptive advertising.

Commissioner Rodriguez’s statement has thus raised eyebrows. Supporters see it as a principled stand from a legal expert viewing the issue through a unique administrative law framework. They argue that her position as a quasi-judicial officer gives her a distinct perspective on the meaning of “neglect of duty” and “malfeasance.”

Conversely, detractors accuse her of partisan overreach. They claim that an appointed official at a commercial regulatory agency has no business commenting on presidential eligibility. A spokesperson for a conservative legal foundation called the remarks “an inappropriate and biased use of her platform, designed to interfere with an election.” This highlights the tightrope that officials like an FTC commissioner must walk when their legal expertise intersects with national politics.

Political and Legal Reactions Emerge

The reaction to Commissioner Rodriguez’s statement was swift and divided along predictable lines. The Trump campaign immediately issued a press release condemning the comments as “another desperate attack from a Biden-appointed bureaucrat in the D.C. swamp.” The statement accused Rodriguez of attempting to “legislate from the unelected administrative state.”

Legal scholars remain split. While some have dismissed the theory out of hand, others are more intrigued. “It’s not a slam dunk, but it’s not frivolous either,” said one Yale Law School fellow. “It forces us to think about the underlying principles of official conduct and accountability. It could certainly appear in an amicus brief, even if it’s unlikely to be the deciding factor for the Supreme Court.”

On Capitol Hill, Democrats have largely remained quiet, likely wary of amplifying an argument that could be perceived as legally esoteric. However, a few progressive members have praised Rodriguez’s “intellectual courage.” Republicans, meanwhile, have seized on the comments as further evidence of what they claim is a “weaponized” federal government. Several have called for an investigation into whether Rodriguez violated any ethics rules governing political activity by federal appointees. Read more about the current political climate in our piece on congressional gridlock.

What This Means for the Legal Road Ahead

Ultimately, the opinion of a single FTC commissioner does not alter the legal landscape overnight. The final say on Donald Trump’s eligibility under the 14th Amendment will rest with the U.S. Supreme Court, which is already grappling with cases from several states.

However, Rodriguez’s argument could still have an impact. It provides a new, albeit controversial, line of reasoning for lawyers and advocacy groups challenging Trump’s candidacy. By linking the debate to the established principles of administrative law and the integrity of federal office, it reframes the issue in a way that could appeal to certain legal philosophies focused on governmental structure and function.

The incident also shines a light on the evolving role of officials at independent agencies. As political polarization intensifies, the line between expert legal commentary and political advocacy is becoming increasingly blurred. Whether this statement is remembered as a brilliant legal insight or a partisan misstep, it has undeniably added a new and unexpected chapter to one of the most significant constitutional questions of our time.