The U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark rulings on June 29, 2026, significantly reshaping presidential authority over federal agencies. In a 6-3 decision, the court overturned a 90-year-old precedent, allowing presidents to fire heads of most independent agencies without cause. However, in a separate 5-4 ruling, the court preserved Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook's position, requiring due process for her removal.
Immediate Action & Core Facts
The court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter struck down Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which had protected agency heads from arbitrary removal. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, argued that Congress cannot limit the president's removal power over executive branch officers. The ruling applies to agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Labor Relations Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission.
In Trump v. Cook, the court blocked President Donald Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, ruling that she must receive formal notice and due process before removal. The decision emphasized the Fed's unique independence, distinguishing it from other agencies.
Deeper Dive & Context
Presidential Power Expansion
The court's ruling in Trump v. Slaughter grants presidents broad authority to remove agency heads, reversing decades of precedent. Roberts argued that the Constitution vests removal power in the president to ensure accountability. The decision aligns with Roberts' long-held belief in strong executive authority, dating back to his Reagan-era legal work.
Federal Reserve Exception
The court's decision in Trump v. Cook preserved the Fed's independence, requiring Trump to follow statutory procedures before removing Cook. The ruling noted that Fed governors serve 14-year terms and can only be removed for cause. Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, faced allegations of mortgage fraud, which the court deemed insufficient for immediate removal.
Political and Policy Implications
The rulings have sparked debate over executive power and regulatory independence. Supporters of the Slaughter decision argue it restores presidential accountability, while critics warn it undermines checks and balances. The Fed ruling was praised for protecting monetary policy from political interference.
Historical Context
The Humphrey’s Executor precedent dates to 1935, when the court upheld Congress' authority to limit presidential removal power. The Supreme Court has gradually chipped away at this precedent, culminating in Monday's decision. The Fed's independence has been a cornerstone of U.S. economic policy since its 1913 founding.
Reactions
President Trump hailed the Slaughter ruling as a historic victory, calling it a long-sought expansion of presidential authority. Cook's legal team welcomed the court's decision to uphold due process. Legal experts noted the rulings could lead to more volatile policymaking and regulatory whiplash under future administrations.