Supreme Court Issues Three Major Rulings on Presidential Power, Voting Rights
The Supreme Court handed down three consequential rulings Monday that will reshape the balance of power between the executive branch and the nation’s independent regulatory agencies — and could determine the rules governing November’s midterm elections. The decisions, handed down as the court nears the end of its 2026 term, represent the most significant realignment of presidential removal authority since the New Deal era.
Court Backs Trump on FTC Commissioner Removal
The most sweeping decision came in the court’s ruling on presidential removal power, a 6-3 decision that upheld Donald Trump’s authority to fire Federal Trade Commission Democratic appointee Chair Rebecca Slaughter while simultaneously blocking the president from removing Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook. The apparent internal split within the same ruling sent legal scholars scrambling to reconcile the logic. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, drew a sharp distinction between the FTC’s commission-based structure and the Federal Reserve’s singular mandate in monetary policy.
“The president may remove a Fed governor only for cause, because the Federal Reserve’s unique structure and its role in monetary policy demand insulation from political pressure,” Kavanaugh wrote. The ruling effectively creates a two-tier system: multimember commissions like the FTC and NLRB, with their statutory bipartisan balance requirements, serve at the president’s pleasure, while single-purpose institutions like the Fed retain stronger protections for their leadership.
The decision immediately drew fire from former regulators. “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,” said Trevor Potter, former chair of the Federal Election Commission and now president of the Campaign Legal Center. “Congress created these agencies to insulate critical regulatory functions from political interference — the court has now undermined that structural protection.”
Mail-In Ballot Grace Period Upheld
Just minutes after the agency ruling, the court issued a 5-4 decision upholding a state law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted up to five business days later — a direct repudiation of the Trump administration’s sustained campaign against absentee voting. The decision, written by Justice Elena Kagan, rejected the administration’s argument that the grace period invited fraud and constitutional concern.
Trump called the ruling from the Oval Office on Monday afternoon. “That was a ruling that I think was very detrimental to honest elections,” the president told reporters. “It gives people more time to vote illegally.” Research has consistently found mail-voting fraud and voting by noncitizens to be exceedingly rare, and Kagan’s opinion noted as much while defending the state’s interest in accommodating rural postal delays.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said the FTC ruling in particular was “an affront to good governance” that would embolden presidents to weaponize independent agencies as patronage tools. “The court has given future presidents a roadmap to gut the independence of every multimember commission Congress has created,” Durbin said in a statement. “This is a dark day for the rule of law.”
What Comes Next
The court is expected to issue its final decisions of the term on Tuesday, including closely watched rulings on whether states can prohibit transgender athletes from playing on female sports teams and whether Trump’s executive order redefining birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment can stand. On the citizenship question, Trump signaled Monday he would accept an adverse ruling but warned of the cost. “I guess I have to accept it,” he said. “It’s the Supreme Court so I’ll accept. I think it’s very bad for the nation. It’s tremendously destructive, it’s extremely costly.” Both rulings Tuesday carry sweeping implications for the remainder of the Trump presidency and the legal landscape heading into the 2026 midterms.
