Democratic FTC Commissioner Quits—But That Doesn't Mean He's Dropping His Lawsuit
Trump fired Federal Trade Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya in March. Yesterday he gave up his claim to the job, but he's still challenging the White House's right to dismiss him.

Alvaro Bedoya, former commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), formally resigned on Monday after he and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the other Democrat-appointed commissioner, were fired by President Donald Trump in March. Bedoya and Slaughter have challenged the president in court, with Slaughter arguing that the firings violated "the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent." Although Bedoya and Slaughter will continue pursuing their legal challenge to the firings, Bedoya's pressured resignation represents a major blow to the security of independent agency executives.
The Supreme Court precedent invoked by Bedoya and Slaughter is Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. (1935), which was prompted by then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's attempted firing of FTC Commissioner William E. Humphrey, who former President Herbert Hoover had appointed to serve a second, seven-year term on the commission in 1931. The Court unanimously ruled against Roosevelt, finding that the president is not free to fire officers of those "quasi legislative or quasi judicial agencies" created by Congress without cause. The president's ability to fire such officers at will "threatens the independence of a commission…as an agency of the legislative and judicial departments," thereby undermining the separation of powers codified in the Constitution. (The existence of executive agencies that simultaneously wield legislative and judicial powers is itself a blatant violation of this principle.)
On Monday, Bedoya filed a supplemental declaration to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the court hearing his and Slaughter's case against the Trump administration) providing his reasons for formally resigning. Bedoya explained that he has been denied his wages as FTC commissioner following his firing and that, to comply with rules and regulations, he has not accepted other employment opportunities. Since Bedoya can "no longer afford to go without any source of income for [his] family," he resigned "out of an abundance" to pursue paid employment outside the agency.
Former FTC Chair Lina Khan credited Bedoya with reviving the Robinson-Patman Act, which outlaws price discrimination, and thanked him for "his remarkable tenure" as an FTC commissioner and "his outstanding public service." She described Bedoya's resignation as "a huge loss." FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak—both of whom are named as defendants in Bedoya and Slaughter's lawsuit—have not yet spoken publicly about Bedoya's resignation, nor has the more recently appointed commissioner, Mark Meador.
The partisan divisions between FTC commissioners belie claims of the very independence that the Supreme Court regarded as "essential [so] that the commission should not be open to the suspicion of partisan direction" in Humphrey's Executor. Regardless of the partisanship of the FTC and the constitutionality of Humphrey's Executor, the now-resigned commissioner is "still suing the President! Not dropping out of the lawsuit," Bedoya emphasized on X.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If the president can’t fire you, who can?
“What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
Tony Benn, 5 essential rules for a functioning democracy.
There should be no independent agencies. If there are and they are exempt from oversite by elected officials, we have no system of government that can survive. We have a shadow or deep state beholden to no one except themselves and their ideological bedmates.
Either Congress or The President should have the power to fire any member of any federal board (let’s leave aside that most boards are wholly unconstitutional on their face). It boggles the mind that anyone thinks having completely unaccountable bureaucrats is a winning strategy.
Former FTC Chair Lina Khan credited Bedoya with reviving the Robinson-Patman Act, which outlaws price discrimination, and thanked him for "his remarkable tenure" as an FTC commissioner and "his outstanding public service."
Bedoya is an avowed enemy of free markets. Reason should be celebrating his firing.
But was the Due Process Dance of the 'Tards completed in full?
....but TRUMP!
Praise from Khan isn't exactly something I'd brag about. Even Reason wasn't too high on her
https://reason.com/2024/11/07/good-riddance-lina-khan/
finding that the president is not free to fire officers of those "quasi legislative or quasi judicial agencies" created by Congress without cause.
The court continued, "because the Congress can't create quasi anything and the FTC is found unconstitutional"
- a man can dream
Weren't we being told a month ago by those in media who defend "our democracy" that unelected officials were totalitarian fascists?
I don't know, were we? That would represent a major shift for the media, who have been enamored with unelected officials for most of my adult life. I mean, shit, just listen to NPR for... I dunno, 20 to 25 years and they treat them as rock stars.
I think he was alluding to their temper tantrum over Elon Musk and DOGE.
Libertarians for saving the phony baloney jobs of unaccountable government hacks.
Think its fairer to say "Libertarians favoring the rule of law, even when it also means saving the phony baloney jobs of unaccountable government hacks"
How do you resign if you have already been fired?
No one GAF about your resignation at that point - you're already gone.
You work for the Executive (President), Legislative (Congress) or Judicial Branch. There are no other options.
The President should be able to fire ANYONE from the Executive.
Legislative and Judicial employees are a little different.
Some one or group is in charge. Quasi-legislative must've been a means to control the insane FDR who was acting as king. Too bad he didn't die of polio 16 years earlier!
Someone pays them, who is it? Saying someone is hired by someone in the federal government and is then immune from any action including firing is the pure definition of a deep state. All manner of activists can get jobs they can't be fired from and commit quite a bit of damage.
"I quit."
"You wrongfully terminated my employment."
Derp.
Hard to see how this case moves forward. The guy quit so now has no standing to sue anyone. If he was arguing he couldn't be fired then quit what is his remedy? He doesn't want the job back. If he is not careful and gets the wrong judge or the DOJ decides to go after him for filing a frivolous lawsuit he could be in big trouble. It's this type of nonsense shit lawfare that is clogging the courts up.
So which laws do I have to follow ? Legislated laws or quazi legislated laws?