Federal judge sides with fired FTC commissioner in case against Trump
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, a Biden administration appointee, said the Trump administration's 'attempt to remove' Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 'did not comply with the FTC Act's removal protections.'
'Defendants repeatedly want the FTC to be something it is not: a subservient agency subject to the whims of the President and wholly lacking in autonomy. But that is not how Congress structured it,' AliKhan wrote in her opinion.
'Undermining that autonomy by allowing the President to remove Commissioners at will inflicts an exceptionally unique harm distinct from the mine run of wrongful termination cases,' she added.
The FTC is tasked with enforcing antitrust law and consumer protection, separate from the direction of the White House.
Slaughter, who was fired alongside Alvaro Bedoya earlier this year, said she's motivated to return to work.
'As the Court recognized today, the law is clear, and I look forward to getting back to work,' said Slaughter in a statement to Reuters.
'The for-cause removal protections that apply to my colleagues and me at the FTC also protect other independent economic regulators like the SEC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve.'
However, the Trump administration stated that it would appeal the ruling, a move that could likely escalate to the Supreme Court.
The Hill reached out to the White House and FTC for comment on the Thursday ruling.
The White House told Reuters, 'The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the President's constitutional authority to fire and remove executive officers who exercise his authority. The Trump Administration will appeal this unlawful decision and looks forward to victory on this issue.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mountview Estates P.L.C.'s (LON:MTVW) Financial Prospects Don't Look Very Positive: Could It Mean A Stock Price Drop In The Future?
Mountview Estates' (LON:MTVW) stock is up by 4.9% over the past three months. However, its weak financial performance indicators makes us a bit doubtful if that trend could continue. Specifically, we decided to study Mountview Estates' ROE in this article. Return on Equity or ROE is a test of how effectively a company is growing its value and managing investors' money. Put another way, it reveals the company's success at turning shareholder investments into profits. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. How Is ROE Calculated? The formula for return on equity is: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Mountview Estates is: 5.8% = UK£23m ÷ UK£403m (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). The 'return' is the amount earned after tax over the last twelve months. One way to conceptualize this is that for each £1 of shareholders' capital it has, the company made £0.06 in profit. View our latest analysis for Mountview Estates What Has ROE Got To Do With Earnings Growth? Thus far, we have learned that ROE measures how efficiently a company is generating its profits. Depending on how much of these profits the company reinvests or "retains", and how effectively it does so, we are then able to assess a company's earnings growth potential. Assuming all else is equal, companies that have both a higher return on equity and higher profit retention are usually the ones that have a higher growth rate when compared to companies that don't have the same features. Mountview Estates' Earnings Growth And 5.8% ROE At first glance, Mountview Estates' ROE doesn't look very promising. However, given that the company's ROE is similar to the average industry ROE of 6.8%, we may spare it some thought. But Mountview Estates saw a five year net income decline of 2.0% over the past five years. Remember, the company's ROE is a bit low to begin with. Therefore, the decline in earnings could also be the result of this. Furthermore, even when compared to the industry, which has been shrinking its earnings at a rate of 0.3% over the last few years, we found that Mountview Estates' performance is pretty disappointing, as it suggests that the company has been shrunk its earnings at a rate faster than the industry. The basis for attaching value to a company is, to a great extent, tied to its earnings growth. It's important for an investor to know whether the market has priced in the company's expected earnings growth (or decline). Doing so will help them establish if the stock's future looks promising or ominous. One good indicator of expected earnings growth is the P/E ratio which determines the price the market is willing to pay for a stock based on its earnings prospects. So, you may want to check if Mountview Estates is trading on a high P/E or a low P/E, relative to its industry. Is Mountview Estates Using Its Retained Earnings Effectively? Mountview Estates has a high three-year median payout ratio of 73% (that is, it is retaining 27% of its profits). This suggests that the company is paying most of its profits as dividends to its shareholders. This goes some way in explaining why its earnings have been shrinking. The business is only left with a small pool of capital to reinvest - A vicious cycle that doesn't benefit the company in the long-run. You can see the 2 risks we have identified for Mountview Estates by visiting our risks dashboard for free on our platform here. Additionally, Mountview Estates has paid dividends over a period of at least ten years, which means that the company's management is determined to pay dividends even if it means little to no earnings growth. Summary In total, we would have a hard think before deciding on any investment action concerning Mountview Estates. The company has seen a lack of earnings growth as a result of retaining very little profits and whatever little it does retain, is being reinvested at a very low rate of return. Up till now, we've only made a short study of the company's growth data. You can do your own research on Mountview Estates and see how it has performed in the past by looking at this FREE detailed graph of past earnings, revenue and cash flows. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
American Military News
22 minutes ago
- American Military News
Sexual LGBT books revealed in list of 596 books banned by Pentagon
A list of 596 books banned from use at the Department of Defense's military schools under President Donald Trump's administration was recently released by a U.S. district court. The list includes numerous books on graphic LGBTQ topics, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) topics, and other left-wing topics. According to The Daily Caller, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia released a list on July 11 of the books the Pentagon has banned from its military schools. The list was released as part of the lawsuit brought against the Department of Defense Education Activity by the American Civil Liberties Union. The Trump administration's Department of Defense was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union, military students, and the family members of military students in April following multiple book bans and curriculum changes implemented by the administration to remove DEI policies and curriculum from the military. 'Our DoDEA schools are not playgrounds for left-wing activists pushing race-baiting, gender confusion, and anti-American propaganda,' DOD Watch Executive Director Nicole Kiprilov said in a statement to The Daily Caller. 'This isn't about banning ideas; it's about stopping the deliberate indoctrination of military children with a radical ideology that directly contradicts the values that should be shaping our children's growth and development.' READ MORE: Defense Department sued over Trump admin's alleged 'book bans' 'The Trump administration is fighting for military families by making sure DoDEA schools reflect the values of service, sacrifice, and country, and not the woke agenda of activist bureaucrats,' Kiprilov added. The Daily Caller reported that a significant number of the books included in the list feature sexual LGBTQ themes aimed at minors, while other books on the list feature DEI and other left-wing topics. One of the books on the list is a children's book titled 'My Dad Thinks I'm a Boy?!: A Trans Positive Children's Book.' According to a description on Amazon's website, 'This powerful and uplifting book for children aged 6 – 9 and their families humorously portrays a situation that is often too common, where a trans child is forced to negotiate between their true self and their parents' love.' Another book on the list is titled 'Dude, You're a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School.' A description of the book claims that it explains 'how the 'specter of the fag' becomes a disciplinary mechanism for regulating heterosexual as well as homosexual boys and how the 'fag discourse' is as much tied to gender as it is to sexuality.' Other books included as part of the Pentagon's ban include 'Sex Is a Funny Word: A Book about Bodies, Feelings, and YOU, 'ABC's of LGBT+,' 'Auntie Uncle: Drag Queen Hero,' and 'Baby Drag Queen.'
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump DOJ wants Supreme Court to bring down hammer on gun rules
WASHINGTON − After the Supreme Court in 2022 made it harder to restrict who can arm themselves in public, some states took a different approach. Five Democrat-led, mostly densely populous states passed laws that prohibit bringing a handgun onto someone else's property without that person's express consent. Now the Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to declare that such rules in Hawaii, California, New York, Maryland and New Jersey violate the Constitution. 'The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment,' Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in explaining why the Department of Justice wants the high court to weigh in. That's not the only example of how the change in administrations is affecting litigation over gun regulations. Justice Department stopped defending federal handgun rule In a move alarming to groups working to prevent gun violence, the DOJ declined to continue to defend a federal law setting 21 as the minimum age to own a handgun after an appeals court ruled the restriction unconstitutional. 'For the government to step back and say, `Hey, here's a major piece of federal firearms legislation that was passed by Congress; we're just not going to bother to defend it any longer,' that's a really, really significant thing,' said Esther Sanchez-Gomez, litigation director for the Giffords Law Center. The DOJ has also told the Supreme Court that the federal government no longer opposes all aspects of a Missouri law – blocked by lower courts after the Biden administration and others challenged it – that would penalize state police for enforcing federal gun control laws. 'This is the first time we've seen a Justice Department really actively fight for the Second Amendment rights of all Americans," said Hannah Hill, vice president of the National Foundation for Gun Rights. Hill said it's taken the administration longer than she'd hoped to take a stand and her group is eager for President Donald Trump to repeal federal regulations − including rules on untraceable "ghost guns" that the Supreme Court upheld in March. "But you're seeing a slow pivot of a massive ship back toward the Constitution," she said. "And I'm extremely encouraged by the trajectory." Trump: `No one will lay a finger on your firearms' During a 2024 campaign stop to address thousands of members of the National Rifle Association in Pennsylvania, Trump promised that 'no one will lay a finger on your firearms' if voters put him back in the White House. "Your Second Amendment will always be safe with me as your president," Trump said. Soon after taking office, Trump signed an executive order directing a review of Biden-era firearm policies and of the positions the government has taken in gun-related litigation. Legal challenges to firearm rules spiked after the court created a new test for gun laws in its 2022 decision striking down a New York law that required state residents to have "proper cause" to carry a handgun. The court said gun rules must be similar to a historical regulation on weapons to pass constitutional muster. Lower courts divided over age restriction on handguns As the administration was changing hands in January, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a decades-old federal law banning handgun purchases by 18- to 20-year-olds fails that test. "The history of firearm use, particularly in connection with militia service, contradicts the premise that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds are not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment," U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones wrote for the court. In July, the DOJ told a lower court that the government is not going to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. But the high court may still take up the issue. More: Supreme Court rules Mexico can't sue US gunmakers over cartel violence In June, the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the opposite conclusion as the 5th Circuit, ruling against a similar challenge. "From English common law to America's founding and beyond, our regulatory tradition has permitted restrictions on the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21," U.S. Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote for the court. The four 18- to 20-year-olds challenging the age restriction have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. The DOJ has not yet filed its response. More: Supreme Court sides with Biden and upholds regulations of ghost guns to make them traceable Debate over the right to carry a gun in public In its brief supporting a challenge to Hawaii's law prohibiting the carrying of handguns onto someone else's property without their consent, the government said that the rule 'effectively nullifies' the general right to carry a gun in public that the court upheld in 2022. 'Someone carrying a firearm for self-defense cannot run errands without fear of criminal sanctions,' Sauer told the court. Sanchez-Gomez, the litigation director for the Giffords Law Center, said property owners have always had the ability to restrict weapons. But Hawaii's law makes the default that handguns aren't allowed unless there's express permission, rather than that they are allowed unless they're expressly prohibited. When the court limited states' control over who could publicly carry guns, she said, the focus turned to where in public they could bring them. Alex McCourt, an assistant professor with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, said the Supreme Court could take up the case not so much because the Trump administration wants them to but because one appeals court upheld Hawaii's rule while a different appeals court rejected New York's. 'The fact that we have these differing opinions across the country probably weighs even heavier in the Supreme Court's mind," he said. Still, McCourt said, it's relatively rare for the high court to weigh in on gun laws. 'They often say no,' he said. Justice Department backs challenge to bans on AR-15s In June, the justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons, although Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he expects his colleagues 'will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.' Days later, the Justice Department urged the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down a similar law in Illinois. 'Because the Act is a total ban on a category of firearms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful reasons, it is flatly unconstitutional,' lawyers for the DOJ wrote in a legal brief supporting the challenge. The Firearms Policy Coalition, one of the groups fighting Illinois' law, called the DOJ's filing a critical step toward Trump fulfilling his promise to defend the Second Amendment. 'We hope Solicitor General Sauer will stand with us on this issue at the Supreme Court,' coalition president Brandon Combs said in a statement, 'when this case inevitably heads up.'
