BETTER MARKETS, ALONG WITH DOZENS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCATES, URGES THE SUPREME COURT TO REJECT THE PRESIDENT’S CLAIMED AUTHORITY TO FIRE AGENCY HEADS WITHOUT CAUSE.
Among the most important issues now before the Supreme Court is whether the President can fire agency leaders without cause and in violation of limits set by Congress. One of the most closely watched cases addressing that question is Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332. In that case, Rebecca Slaughter is challenging the President’s attempt to remove her as a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), an important consumer protection agency and financial regulator. The attempted removal clearly violated the law, which provides that FTC commissioners may only be removed by the President for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Slaughter never exhibited any of those failings as an FTC commissioner.
On November 13, Better markets joined with 39 other prominent public interest organizations to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Slaughter. It is customary in these and many other high-profile cases for non-parties to file such briefs, known by the Latin phrase that means “friend of the court.” These briefs provide the courts with different perspectives on the legal issues presented, beyond the arguments that the parties offer. Perhaps most important, amicus briefs also help courts understand the real-world consequences of their decisions.
Our brief demonstrates that removal protections for agency leaders are essential for protecting the public. Limiting the president’s power to fire agency heads without any cause related to competence or job performance is necessary to make sure that agency decisions are based on independent expertise and balanced views, not fear of political reprisal from the White House or overbearing industry influence. The brief draws on numerous concrete and often sobering examples to show that when this kind of independence is lost, so too are protections against rigged financial markets, life-threatening products, and predatory monopolies. In some cases, as the brief details, when agencies fail to do what’s best for the public and instead yield to political and industry influence, the public can suffer life-and-death consequences.
Our brief aptly sums up what’s at stake: “Congress created independent commissions to serve the public interest, not political expediency or corporate profit. Overruling Humphrey’s Executor would dismantle these protections and cause real world harm to everyday Americans, particularly the most vulnerable. The Court should reject this dangerous path and reaffirm the constitutional and practical necessity of agency independence.”
Court watchers are keenly focused on the case not only because of the far-reaching impact the Court’s decision will have on public health and safety but also because it calls upon the Court to reconsider and possibly overrule one of its own long-standing precedents—something the Court is normally very reluctant to do. Ninety years ago, the Court upheld removal protections for leaders of the FTC in a case known as Humphrey’s Executor, but the Court has clearly signaled it is reconsidering that decision.
Special recognition goes to the groups that organized the brief: the Consumer Federation of America, the UC Berkeley Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Demand Progress. The brief was authored by the law firm of Berger Montague PC. The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in the case for December 8, which can be heard live via the Court’s website: www.supremecourt.gov.
IEX SEEKS TO DEFEND ITS BENEFICIAL OPTIONS TRADING PLATFORM AGAINST AN ATTACK BY AN ENTRENCHED SECURITIES MARKET PARTICIPANT.
Investors Exchange LLC (IEX) is an innovative and pro-investor stock exchange that seeks to promote fairness in the securities markets. It develops trading platforms that help neutralize what’s known as “latency arbitrage.” That’s a trading strategy used by a small number of firms with enormous resources that employ the most advanced high-speed trading technology to gain an edge over other investors in the execution of stock orders. They in effect get a microsecond sneak preview of imminent price changes in the market and can act on that information before other investors see the price shifts. It means huge and sure-fire profits for the high-speed traders. IEX’s trading platforms seek to counteract this unfair advantage by routing orders through a “speed bump” and applying technology that updates orders when prices are in transition. The effect is to level the playing field for all investors that trade through IEX.
Recently, IEX developed a new platform to combat latency arbitrage in options trading. The SEC approved the proposal in September, and shortly thereafter, Citadel Securities LLC (Citadel) challenged the SEC’s approval in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Citadel Securities LLC v. SEC, No. 25-13631 (11th Cir.). Citadel is a leading high-speed trader well known for its reliance on latency arbitrage, and it clearly seeks to preserve the status quo and its enormous profits by attacking IEX’s innovation. On October 31, IEX moved to intervene to help defend its options trading platform from Citadel’s attack.
Once again, this case exemplifies a familiar pattern in the financial markets and administrative law: Entrenched industry interests seek to protect their profitable advantages by fighting against market improvements that will help the vast majority of investors—as Better Markets highlighted in another case involving IEX. And the equally familiar strategy on display is for the challenger to attack the agency responsible for approving the innovation, in this case, the SEC. We’ll be tracking the case and reporting further as developments unfold.
SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, MASTERMIND OF THE LARGEST CRYPTO FRAUD IN HISTORY, URGES APPELLATE COURT TO OVERTURN HIS WELL-DESERVED CRIMINAL CONVICTION AND SENTENCE.
On November 4, 2025, an attorney for Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that SBF’s conviction and sentence should be overturned and that he should receive a new trial. Recall that SBF formed and ran the crypto firm FTX. In November of 2022, the firm spectacularly collapsed, as it was revealed that SBF had diverted billions of dollars in customer funds to his separate trading firm, Alameda Research, and had spent large sums on luxury homes, political contributions, entertainment, and corporate sponsorships. On November 3, 2023, a jury convicted SBF of seven criminal counts, including wire fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. On March 28, 2024, the court sentenced him to 25 years in prison and ordered him to forfeit $11 billion for victim compensation, vindicating Better Markets call for a long prison term reflecting the enormity of SBF’s crimes. He filed his appeal in April of 2024.
Four issues dominated the hearing on November 4. First, SBF argued that due to the trial judge’s evidentiary rulings, he wasn’t allowed to tell his “story.” Specifically, he claimed that he was prevented from refuting the government’s narrative that investor money was “gone forever,” when in fact there is enough to make them whole. The judges appeared to reject that argument since victim recovery is simply not a defense to the fraud charges leveled against him.
Second, SBF advanced a nebulous claim that he wasn’t permitted to sufficiently demonstrate the “involvement of counsel” in various aspects of the scheme, such as the drafting of some documents. His view was that such evidence would have proved his good faith in the scheme. However, here too, the judges appeared skeptical, observing that SBF never actually asserted or relied upon a formal “advice of counsel” defense. Moreover, one judge seemed to scoff at the idea that mere involvement of counsel proves anything about a defendant’s true state of mind.
Third, much of the focus was on the $11 billion forfeiture obligation imposed on SBF. The judges spent a good bit of time on it, voicing concerns about its role in compensating victims and whether it was excessive. The government attorney seemed to allay those concerns, but it’s not clear whether he was totally successful.
Finally, on the claim of general trial court bias against SBF, government counsel rightly pointed out that to the extent the district judge ruled in favor of the government at trial more frequently than it ruled in favor of SBF, that was largely because SBF was advancing baseless objections and arguments. We’ll watch for the appellate court’s decision and report the outcome. It appears that the record provides little basis for setting aside SBF’s conviction and sentence.
