Bipartisan former members of Congress join Issue One to urge the Supreme Court to reaffirm congressional authority and limit presidential power

A bipartisan group of six former members of Congress joined Issue One in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Trump v. Slaughter, a critical test of executive power that could determine a president’s ability to fire independent agency leaders at will. All signatories on the amicus brief are members of Issue One’s ReFormers Caucus, including:

• Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-WI)
• Rep. Peter Smith (R-VT)
• Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA)
• Rep. Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA)
• Rep. Bill Sarpalius (D-TX)
• Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA)

Issue One’s brief calls on the Court to uphold our constitutional system of checks and balances, maintaining that principle even if the Court ultimately rules against it, because such an outcome would only emphasize how urgently these constitutional guardrails must be protected. The final ruling, expected by the end of the Court’s term next year, could have far-reaching implications for presidential power and damaging effects on our separation of powers.

Trump v. Slaughter arises from President Trump’s March 2025 removal of two Democratic-appointed members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), including Rebecca Slaughter, in defiance of their statutory “for-cause” removal protections. Slaughter sued, and in July the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia held her removal unlawful and ordered her reinstated. The Supreme Court put that order on hold in September 2025 pending their own review and ruling in the case, which could upend a 90-year precedent and give the executive branch far more authority over independent federal agencies.

In the Slaughter case, the Trump administration has argued that the president has absolute constitutional authority to remove heads of independent agencies, such as the FTC, without needing “for-cause” justification as defined under current law. In response, Issue One argued the following in its amicus brief:

“The Constitution’s text and structure create a system of checks and balances. That system is designed to operate by blending the powers it establishes. By blending power, the Constitution enables each branch to act as a check on the others. James Madison extolled this design as the Constitution’s bulwark against threats to individual liberty. The blending of power is the rule, not the exception. Indeed, deviations from the blending of power—which is to say, claims of exclusive and preclusive power—are truly exceptional outliers to the Constitution’s plan for the allocation of power between the branches.

“So it is with the President’s power to appoint and remove officers of the United States. The Government in this case erroneously claims a power that excludes Congress from legislating on the subject. This ignores Congress’s substantial authority in the area. It is Congress that creates offices; fixes their tenure, duration, and emolument; defines their duties; and sets forth the manner and mode by which those duties may and may not be performed.”

The brief also called for Congress to step up and do its job more fully: “Structurally, the Constitution divides the federal government into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. It is not happenstance that Congress is the first branch established. The Framers expected that Congress would predominate. It is Congress from which the other branches flow.”

In response to the challenges to the separation of powers brought forth in this case, Issue One Founder and CEO Nick Penniman offered the following statement:

“Our form of self government is based on constitutional norms and the rule of law. At the heart of both are checks and balances among the branches of government. The Supreme Court must preserve the powers delegated to the most representative branch — to Congress — and limit the ability of those in the executive branch to govern based on their own whims or self interest.”

The Supreme Court is deciding this case as American voters are increasingly concerned about too much power being concentrated in the presidency, according to recent polling by Issue One and YouGov as part of Issue One’s Check the Exec campaign. Nearly 1 in 3 voters (32%) ranked the president having too much power as their number one issue, just below inflation (46%) and roughly tied with jobs (34%) and immigration (34%). The poll, which found strong bipartisan support for our system of checks and balances, revealed that an overall majority of voters (59%) — including nearly 8 in 10 independents (79%) — believe that President Trump is going too far outside the bounds of our system of checks and balances to advance his political agenda. The poll also found a broad, bipartisan preference for leaders who respect our system of checks and balances, with more than 3 in 4 voters (78%) supporting holding the executive branch accountable through congressional oversight.

Read the full brief.