Supreme Court’s Mixed Rulings Sharpen the Battle Over Presidential Power
Trump Blocked from Firing Fed Governor, But Cleared to Remove FTC Commissioner
The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict Monday on President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape the executive branch, blocking his attempt to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook while upholding his authority to fire a Democratic appointee at the Federal Trade Commission. The dueling decisions, handed down as the court’s current term nears its end, underscore an institution navigating the tension between presidential power and the independence of regulatory agencies that operate beyond direct White House control.
In the first case, the justices upheld lower court rulings protecting Cook, a Democrat appointed by President Joe Biden, making her the first Black woman to serve on the Fed’s board. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion holding that the Fed’s structure was designed to insulate monetary policy decisions from political pressure. The court rejected the administration’s argument that the president holds plenary power to remove any executive branch official at will.
The second ruling was a decisive win for Trump. In a case that overturned 90 years of precedent, the court ruled 5-4 that the president has the power to fire leaders of independent agencies without cause. Roberts again wrote the majority opinion, declaring that a president “must have the assistance of officers he can trust.” The decision allows Trump to remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, and could reshape more than a dozen federal agencies.
The FTC decision triggered immediate condemnation from Capitol Hill. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the ruling would “greenlight” Trump’s threats to independent agencies. “Now, this President can fire whomever he perceives as his enemy at these agencies without so much as citing cause,” Durbin said. “This ruling is an affront to good governance and the point of ‘independent’ federal agencies in the first place.”
Former Federal Election Commission chairman Trevor Potter, now president of the Campaign Legal Center, was equally pointed. “Today’s Supreme Court decision is a direct attack on the constitutional authority of Congress to establish such independent agencies and thus on our system of checks and balances,” Potter said in a statement.
A Third Front: Mail-In Voting Grace Period Upheld
A third decision Monday dealt a setback to Trump’s long-running campaign against mail-in voting. The court upheld Mississippi’s law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to arrive and be counted up to five business days later. Trump called the ruling “detrimental to honest elections” and vowed to press Congress for voter ID requirements and proof-of-citizenship rules instead. “It gives people more time to vote illegally,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. Research has consistently found voting fraud and noncitizen voting to be exceedingly rare.
Despite the defeat on mail voting, Trump seized on the FTC ruling as the marquee victory of the day. He took to social media to declare it an historic expansion of presidential authority. “It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers,” Trump wrote. He told reporters separately that the ruling gives him leverage even if he does not immediately act on it. “It gives me the right to do what the president should have the right to do,” Trump said. “It gave strength to the president.”
What Comes Next
The court is expected to issue its final decisions of the term Tuesday, including rulings on transgender athletes in women’s sports and Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. Trump said he would accept an adverse ruling on birthright citizenship — a position that drew attention given his past claims about the 14th Amendment. “I guess I have to accept it,” Trump told reporters. “It’s the Supreme Court so I’ll accept. I think it’s very bad for the nation.” Analysts say the mixed rulings Monday reflect a court willing to expand executive power in some domains while preserving structural protections in others, leaving the precise boundaries of presidential authority a contested question heading into the November midterm elections.
