Outcry over supreme court decision to grant Trump power to fire agency chiefs
Center Left
Legal and labor experts say Trump v Slaughter decision upends settled constitutional law in favor of ‘loyalty test’As a reality TV show host, Donald Trump rose to fame with the catchphrase: “You’re fired!” On Monday, the US supreme court handed him – and all future presidents – the power to fire leaders of independent agencies or commissions, overturning 90 years of court precedent curbing executive power.While Trump celebrated the decision on Truth Social as a “big win”, labor advocates, unions, and consumer advocacy groups criticized the supreme court decision on the case, Trump v Slaughter, and warned of the long-term impacts for democracy in the US. Slaughter said she was “profoundly disappointed about today’s decision” during a press call.Court rules Trump can fire leaders of independent agenciesCourt rules geofence warrants require constitutional privacy protectionsCourt rules Trump’s firing of Lisa Cook from Fed was unconstitutionalCourt upholds law to count mail-in ballots arriving after election dayCourt rejects Trump’s bid to appeal $5m E Jean Carroll Continue reading...
Court sides against Republicans after deciding earlier this term to let Louisiana effectively dismantle Voting Rights ActUS supreme court decisions – live updatesSign up for the Breaking News US newsletter emailThe US supreme court sided against national Republicans and Donald Trump’s administration to allow mail-in ballots that arrive after election day to be counted, upholding the law in more than a dozen states.The Republican National Committee (RNC) had challenged a Mississippi state law allowing mailed ballots to be counted if they arrive within five business days of election day, so long as they were postmarked by election day.This article was amended on 29 June 2026 to correct some misspelled names Continue reading...
There was good news and bad news from the Supreme Court on Monday. We’ll start with the former. In an extraordinary 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook, the court held that President Donald Trump cannot summarily fire a Federal Reserve governor without cause, thereby shielding the nation’s central bank from direct presidential control.Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the court, held that Congress could lawfully shield Federal Reserve members from removal without cause because of the Fed’s unique role in American governance. In doing so, he and the other justices in the majority—Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberal members—sidestepped some of the court’s normal procedural hurdles.“We see no reason to leave the public in limbo, or to sow doubt as to the status of one of our nation’s (and the world’s) most important financial institutions,” he explained in his majority opinion, quoting from precedent. “Although we appreciate that others may see matters differently, we would not so quickly unsettle this ‘special arrangement sanctioned by history.’”Unfortunately, the court’s deference to Congress on removal protections applies only to the Federal Reserve. The court’s conservative majority simultaneously held that Trump could fire Democratic appointees at the Federal Trade Commission in Trump v. Slaughter, clearing the path for him to wield much greater influence over other financial regulatory agencies.The 6-3 decision is a generational victory for the conservative legal movement, which has spent the last few decades trying to bring independent federal agencies under the heel of Republican presidents. The high court also overturned a New Deal-era precedent that allowed Congress to protect the leaders of federal financial regulators from dismissal without cause in Slaughter. In doing so, it opened some of the nation’s most important governing institutions to the day-to-day whims of a corrupt president.Taken together, Cook and Slaughter divided the Supreme Court into three camps. One of them, represented by the court’s three liberal justices, would have upheld the status quo for independent federal agencies. In their view, Congress can give certain federal agencies a measure of independence from the White House by only allowing the president to fire the agencies’ leaders for cause.This also happened to be the status quo for at least the last century of American history. In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that the president could not lawfully remove a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Prior to Slaughter, no president had sought to dismiss a FTC commissioner, either for cause or without it.While presidents have the power to remove executive-branch officers by default, the Humphrey’s Executor court reasoned, Congress could impose limits if the agency in question also exercised “quasi-legislative” or “quasi-judicial” power. Agency independence became particularly important with financial regulators as a check on corruption and safeguard of public confidence.“Congress and more than a dozen Presidents have relied on Humphrey’s to construct a workable government, creating many other agencies in the FTC’s tradition,” Sotomayor explained in her Cook dissent, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Today, this Court undoes centuries of political practice and concludes that all three branches of government have been acting in open defiance of the Constitution all this time. Its conclusion is wrong.”Last year, Trump began to challenge Humphrey’s Executor by firing the heads of certain federal agencies without cause. The president had long sought to exercise more direct control over federal agencies, though he lacked the interest or drive to do so during his first term. After his return to power last year, Trump ended the Justice Department’s post-Watergate tradition of independence, staffed other agencies with personal loyalists, and sought to remove Democratic appointees of multi-member regulatory agencies.The Supreme Court proved eager to help him wage this war against what conservatives had long derided as the “administrative state.” The justices effectively signaled that Humphrey’s Executor was a dead letter in a shadow-docket ruling in Wilcox v. Trump. (The court also addressed the Federal Reserve in that case, but we’ll come back to that later.)Technically, however, that ruling remained the law of the land when Trump dismissed FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter last year. Slaughter challenged her dismissal in federal court, noting that Congress had insulated commissioners like herself from presidential removal without cause and that Humphrey’s Executor remained good law.
President Donald Trump compared the rise of socialism to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Trump was asked about the possible rise of more socialist candidates after three candidates New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani endorsed last week won their Democratic primary elections. “It’s a big threat to our nation, actually, because it’s not socialism, it’s […]
The decision rebuffs the Republican National Committee’s efforts to end grace periods for some late-arriving votes that were postmarked by Election Day.
The Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a loss on Monday in siding against his party on voting, refusing to overturn state laws that allow mail ballots that arrive after Election Day to be counted as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. But they might simultaneously have given Trump the tools to punch a hole in the right to vote by mail anyway.That's because they also released their long-awaited decision in Trump v. Slaughter, overturning nearly a century of precedent to determine the president can fire members of independent agencies without cause.According to White House correspondent Jacob Bogage, one of the many federal entities that could be impacted by Trump's newfound powers to clean house would be one with critical implications for mail-in ballots — effectively giving him a bunch of the control he was hoping to get out of the ruling that didn't go his way."This also has big potential mail-in voting consequences," he wrote. "It could empower the president to fire members of the USPS board of governors, the group that selects the postmaster general and overseas the U.S. mail system."This comes as the current postmaster general, David Steiner, is already going all-in on a controversial Trump executive order that would direct the Postal Service not to deliver mail ballots at all in states that don't hand over sensitive information about voter practices to the federal government.A federal judge in Boston has already moved to block the enforcement of that executive order, but litigation is certain to continue in the case.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that state laws allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day are legal. The decision is the latest in a series of setbacks for President Trump’s efforts to regulate elections.
