Why do you think the courts treated these two individuals differently?

Well, let's take a look at the holdings in the case, and I think, um, you know, that may, uh, shed some light on it.

In Slaughter, the, uh, um, was the, uh, Federal Trade Commission, the FTC, as you mentioned, and it was a six-three decision based on ideological lines.

The FTC, as you know, protects consumer, consumers against corporate interests and unfair trade practices.

And Chief Justice Roberts wrote that it was really a legal interpretation of Article II of the Constitution, which states that, "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America." And so it gave broad powers to the president to remove officials at will, which is the legal term for really no due process, no notice or opportunity to be heard.

This case, the Slaughter case, overruled a 90-year precedent of Humphrey, Humphrey's executor, where President Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, tried to remove an FTC commissioner that had been appointed by the prior administration, President Hoover.

And although Mr. Humphrey passed away before the litigation was completed, the estate, the executor, uh, filed suit for back pay.

Do you see these cases as settling the question of agency independence, or are they more likely to trigger another round of litigation?