The Supreme Court on Friday set a Dec. 8 date to hear oral arguments in a case centered on President Donald Trump’s authority to fire heads of independent agencies without cause.

This closely watched court fight could overturn a longstanding court precedent and further expand executive branch powers. At issue is Trump’s attempted firing of Rebecca Slaughter, the lone Democrat on the Federal Trade Commission. Trump fired Slaughter and another Democratic member of the FTC in March, though that commissioner has since resigned. 

Slaughter sued earlier this year to block her removal, and a lower court judge ordered her temporarily reinstated to her role on the FTC while the case continued to play out on its merits.

The Trump administration appealed the case to the Supreme Court in September. The justices agreed to hear the case and stayed the lower court ruling that ordered her reinstated — allowing Trump, for now, to proceed with Slaughter’s removal from the FTC.

The court’s willingness to take up the case is seen by many as a sign that the justices plan to revisit the Supreme Court precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States — a 1935 case in which justices unanimously blocked presidents from removing the heads of independent regulatory agencies without cause, and only in limited circumstances.

Justices signaled as much in their directions to lawyers for the Trump administration and Slaughter. 

They ordered both parties to address two key questions in their briefs: whether the removal protections for FTC members ‘violates the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor, should be overruled,’ and whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, ‘either through relief at equity or at law.’

Their review of the case also comes as justices have grappled with a flurry of lawsuits filed this year by other Trump-fired Democratic board members, including by National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris, two Democratic appointees who were abruptly terminated by the Trump administration this year. 

The Supreme Court in May granted Trump’s request to remove both Wilcox and Harris from their respective boards while lower court challenges played out, though the high court did not invoke the Humphrey’s Executor precedent in the short, unsigned order.

It also comes as the Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments in another key case centered on Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, with oral arguments set for January.

The court’s approach in the Slaughter case may signal how it will handle arguments in Trump’s attempt to oust Cook the following month.

New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa faced off in their first general election debate on Thursday night, and, with no live audience, supporters flooded 50th Street outside 30 Rock, cheering on their preferred candidates with campaign signs and lobbing verbal attacks at their opponents. 

With less than three weeks until Election Day, the debate gave voters their clearest side-by-side look yet at the candidates vying to lead the nation’s largest city.

On the debate stage, candidates made commitments to delivering affordability and public safety for New Yorkers. Outside the venue, while speaking to Fox News Digital, Mamdani supporters told Fox News Digital they are ready for change, while those cheering on Cuomo said they were voting for him for his experience. 

‘He’s very experienced,’ Emily, a Cuomo supporter who lives in Brooklyn, told Fox News Digital. ‘I feel that he’s going to keep our city safe and that he is going to keep small businesses alive and that he just has the right amount of experience for the job.’

New York state Sen. Robert Jackson, who was cheering on Mamdani from across 50th Street, said Cuomo already had his chance to deliver for New Yorkers as governor, telling Fox News Digital Cuomo ‘was not the leader that we wanted. He never came through on it.’

On the flip side, Jackson praised Mamdani for getting New Yorkers excited about politics, explaining that he loved Mamdani’s ‘straightforward’ and ‘no nonsense’ policies.

However, both Emily and Anthony Braue, a Bronx union worker, said Mamdani’s policies are driving their support for Cuomo. 

‘Giving away free stuff is not the answer,’ Brau said, telling Fox News Digital he appreciates how Cuomo supports union workers, wants to build infrastructure in New York City and make it a safer place to live. 

Emily added that Mamdani is ‘not experienced,’ and his ‘policies seem too extreme.’

‘Nothing’s free. Giving free stuff means the hard-working people’s taxes are going to pay for the free stuff,’ Braud said. ‘There’s nothing free. It never works out. It might be a good selling campaign pitch, but I don’t think it’s the right thing.’

Braue said he couldn’t understand why members of the Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, a union supporting hospitality workers, were across the street cheering for Mamdani. Ahead of the debate, the New York City Police Department designated three respective pens for supporters to gather. 

‘I don’t know exactly what they’re doing over there,’ he said. ‘They should be on this side with the rest of the union workers, but everyone’s got their own opinion. They’re entitled to it.’

After Thursday night’s debate, Mamdani met with a roundtable of union workers at the Service Employees International Union headquarters Friday morning in Manhattan. 

‘The reason I support Zoran Mandani is because he’s a make-it-make-sense politician,’ SEIU member Pedro Francisco told Fox News Digital ahead of the debate. ‘He really understands what this city needs. The city needs to be affordable for all of us.’

While acknowledging that Cuomo is a ‘great politician’ with great ideas, Francisco said, ‘Cuomo was the past, Zohran is the present and the future of New York City.’

Jim Golden, a 67-year-old New Yorker, agreed that ‘it’s time for a change, simple as that.’

‘We’ve screwed up this city enough, and it’s time to let some other people try and fix it. It’s a mess,’ he said. 

Mamdani, Cuomo and Sliwa all greeted their supporters ahead of the debate on Thursday night, with Mamdani sparking the most raucous commotion as he marched through a gaggle of reporters and glad-handed his supporters lined up along a police barricade. 

Thursday’s mayoral debate was hosted by NBC 4 New York/WNBC and Telemundo 47/WNJU, in partnership with Politico. Election Day is Nov. 4 in New York City in the race to replace Mayor Eric Adams, who suspended his re-election campaign last month. 

Andrea Bocelli paid President Donald Trump a visit at the White House on Oct. 17.

Trump’s special assistant, Margo Martin, shared a video of the moment on X, formerly known as Twitter.

While the Italian tenor appeared to give an impromptu performance in the Oval Office, Trump stood behind the Resolute Desk as Bocelli stood in front, wearing a black suit and tie with sunglasses on.

‘Listen to this,’ Trump said as ‘Time to Say Goodbye’ started playing in the Oval Office.

Bocelli began singing along with the track before he took a moment to laugh. He then continued to sing until the video concluded.

Another video posted by Martin shows Trump and Bocelli talking at the president’s desk and listening to a recording of a Bocelli song.

Trump told reporters Bocelli would be performing at the White House on Dec. 5, two days before the Kennedy Center Honors, according to Deadline. 

Bocelli’s representatives did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Bocelli’s visit to the White House came just before the President of the United States welcomed the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, for the high-stakes summit. 

It is unclear if Bocelli’s visit and Zelenskyy’s are connected.

Andrea Bocelli paid President Donald Trump a visit at the White House on Oct. 17.

Trump’s special assistant, Margo Martin, shared a video of the moment on X, formerly known as Twitter.

While the Italian tenor appeared to give an impromptu performance in the Oval Office, Trump stood behind the Resolute Desk as Bocelli stood in front, wearing a black suit and tie with sunglasses on.

‘Listen to this,’ Trump said as ‘Time to Say Goodbye’ started playing in the Oval Office.

Bocelli began singing along with the track before he took a moment to laugh. He then continued to sing until the video concluded.

Another video posted by Martin shows Trump and Bocelli talking at the president’s desk and listening to a recording of a Bocelli song.

Trump told reporters Bocelli would be performing at the White House on Dec. 5, two days before the Kennedy Center Honors, according to Deadline. 

Bocelli’s representatives did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Bocelli’s visit to the White House came just before the President of the United States welcomed the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, for the high-stakes summit. 

It is unclear if Bocelli’s visit and Zelenskyy’s are connected.

The federal judge assigned to oversee the criminal case against former Trump national security advisor John Bolton is an Obama-era appointee who made headlines during both Trump administrations for halting or pausing some of his most sweeping executive orders. 

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang, a 2014 appointee to the federal bench in Greenbelt, Maryland, is far from the only judge whose rulings have been viewed by Trump allies as unfavorable to the administration. Dozens of judges have issued temporary orders and injunctions during Trump’s second term aimed at pausing or blocking certain directives while courts consider their merits.

But Chuang is noteworthy for being the judge who in 2017 issued a nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s revised ‘travel ban’ from taking force. The March 2017 executive order suspended travel for 90 days from six majority-Muslim countries — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — and paused the entry of asylum seekers for 120 days.

Chuang ruled that Trump’s order was likely motivated by anti-Muslim sentiment, describing it as a revised ‘realization’ of Trump’s ‘long-envisioned Muslim ban,’ which he had floated repeatedly during his first presidential bid.

‘Simply because a decisionmaker made the statements during a campaign does not wipe them from the ‘reasonable memory’ of a ‘reasonable observer,” he said in the injunction, which was quickly appealed to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. 

Shortly after Trump took office in January, Chuang again drew the administration’s ire when he blocked Trump and the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from continuing efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development. In a 70-page ruling, he said the actions likely violated the U.S. Constitution ‘in multiple ways.’

The preliminary injunction was the first to attempt to constrain DOGE, which at the time had already cut 98% of USAID staffers. The 4th Circuit also set aside Chuang’s ruling on appeal several weeks later, clearing the way for DOGE to continue its efforts to gut USAID. 

Chuang has also presided over lesser-known cases, including temporarily suspending in-person requirements for women who were seeking the morning-after pill during the COVID-19 pandemic. That decision was later reversed by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision.

Trump’s executive actions and orders have sparked 220 lawsuits since January, according to a litigation tracker from Lawfare Media. 

Many of the early actions were blocked by federal judges, including Chuang, through emergency orders or temporary injunctions pending review.

(Court watchers and legal experts attribute this imbalance to congressional inaction, which has prompted an increase in executive orders by the last four presidents and, in turn, more judicial review.)

Like other federal judges who have held up Trump’s agenda, if only temporarily, in his second term, Chuang’s orders have been castigated by the president’s allies and some Republicans in Congress.

Earlier this year, Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., introduced a House resolution seeking to impeach Chuang and five other federal judges who had challenged Trump administration actions. (The attempt prompted a stern warning from the New York City Bar Association, which cited ‘grave concerns’ about the effort.)

Bolton appeared Friday in federal court in Greenbelt, Md., where he pleaded not guilty to 18 counts.

Bolton’s indictment makes him the third Trump foe to have been indicted in federal court in as many weeks, following the high-profile indictments brought against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. But his case has not touched off the same concerns or allegations of political retribution as the others.

The investigation into Bolton’s handling of classified materials moved forward in part during the Biden administration, and career prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office signed off on the charges — a contrast to the cases against Comey and James, which were brought by Trump’s former attorney Lindsey Halligan.

A magistrate judge ordered Bolton released on the condition that he remain in the continental United States and surrender his passport, which he did. His next court appearance is scheduled for Nov. 21.