The Supreme Court struck down most of the limits that Congress and the courts had previously established to protect the independence of regulatory agencies that comprise much of the federal government.
The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday tossed out two cases involving new redistricting ballot measures that would have favored Democrats. One ruling said the redistricting measure violated the state constitution’s “single subject” requirement that calls for measures proposed by petition to focus on one issue for inclusion on the ballot. The Democratic aligned group, Coloradans…
The Supreme Court this term gave President Trump powers over the federal government that no modern president has held. But it blocked his administration on two of the biggest issues for markets: the Fed and tariffs.Why it matters: Its rulings hand the president firmer command of the federal bureaucracy, signaling to businesses that regulatory policy will be less stable — and more political — with every election.But the cases preserve limits around the Fed and emergency tariff powers, where investors feared political interference could unsettle markets.Between the lines: Case by case, the court gave Trump a freer hand to fire, deport and act before judges could catch up.The court gave his administration major immigration wins, including on asylum access and immigrants' temporary protected status.It repeatedly sided with Trump on emergency appeals, letting contested policies take effect while litigation continued.It also let him fire Federal Trade Commission officials at will, weakening the ability of Congress to create independent agencies outside direct White House control.Yes, but: The court gave Trump more control over business regulations, but not over the authorities governing tariffs or the Federal Reserve.Tariffs: It ruled he couldn't use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs — eliminating one of his fastest and broadest trade tools.The Fed: It denied his bid to immediately fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, upholding Congress' requirement that he clear legal and procedural hurdles.Reality check: The rulings haven't ended either battle.The White House has continued to pursue tariffs through other legal authorities after losing on IEEPA.Trump has said his administration will keep investigating whether it can ultimately remove Cook.The intrigue: The court carved out the Fed from the broader expansion of presidential removal power it announced the same day.It means future presidents can more quickly replace leaders at agencies overseeing antitrust, consumer protection and other major areas of economic regulation.That makes the agencies inherently more political and gives Trump and his successors more power to quickly rewrite regulations and abandon their predecessors' policy agendas.What they're saying: "Now when a new president comes in, they can clean house at all these agencies," says Graham Steele, a former Biden-era Treasury administration official."You have a regulatory pendulum that goes back and forth, depending upon whether you have a Republican or Democratic president," creating more uncertainty for businesses, Steele says.The big picture: Investors worried that giving Trump broader authority to remove Fed officials could erode the central bank's independence and its resolve to keep inflation in check when that inevitably clashes with White House priorities.That, in turn, risked unsettling the Treasury market and raising borrowing costs across the economy.Chief Justice John Roberts justified the Fed exception by warning that the Founders understood the "calamities" that could arise from even the "suspicion" of political manipulation of monetary policy.What to watch: The tariff case carried a different risk: blessing broad emergency tariff powers could make U.S. trade policy swing with the politics of the moment — the kind of uncertainty businesses and investors hate.
Democratic Socialists of America target Colorado primaries as DSA-backed Melat Kiros challenges Rep. Diana DeGette in Denver's 1st Congressional District.
State law now used to treat parents who won't 'affirm' child's 'new identity' as 'abusive'
Reactions were rolling in Monday after President Donald Trump and his Republican Party were dealt a serious blow in the Supreme Court's ruling on mail-in ballots.Reporters asked Trump for his thoughts during a press conference in the Oval Office after the high court upheld a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, rejecting the president's attacks on the voting practice. Trump was asked what comes next for the SAVE America Act, which the president has referred to as a priority. "Because of the mail-in ballot ruling, which was a little bit surprising, it gives people more time to vote illegally," Trump said.Trump himself has voted by mail — and the internet was quick to point that out."If it's a weekday afternoon in America, reporters are nodding sagely and respectfully and pretending it's normal for a president to say things your family would put your uncle in a padded room with non-toxic crayons and a ball of string if he said them," the political commentary account Recovering Journalist wrote on X."Yes, the 'illegal' mail-in votes, even though Trump votes by mail. It’s like OJ telling you driving a Ford Bronco should be illegal," progressive political commentator Chris Robinson wrote on X."Trump’s an idiot. It doesn’t give any more time to vote," Vince Wilson, liberal political commentator and YouTuber, wrote on X."Adjudicated rapist says what?" Dane Rauschenberg, long-distance runner and author, wrote on X.If it's a weekday afternoon in America, reporters are nodding sagely and respectfully and pretending it's normal for a president to say things your family would put your uncle in a padded room with non-toxic crayons and a ball of string if he said them. https://t.co/ixmhMNxxXD— Recovering Journalist (@JournoRehab) June 29, 2026
The 2023 verdict found Trump liable for sexually abusing writer and then defaming her – key US politics stories from Monday 29 June at a glanceThe US supreme court on Monday declined Donald Trump’s request to review a New York jury’s 2023 verdict that found him liable for sexually abusing writer E Jean Carroll, and then defaming her.The justices did not provide an explanation or reasoning, and no public dissents were noted. The decision leaves intact the $5m civil judgment against Trump that was returned by the jury after the two-week trial in 2023. Continue reading...
It was a mixed bag for President Trump at the Supreme Court on Monday. The justices tightened the president’s grip on executive power in ruling independent agency leaders may be fired, while rejecting a key pillar of Trump’s political agenda aimed at restricting mail-in voting. They ruled he must give a Federal Reserve governor due…
The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday delivered a death blow to ballot measures aimed at handing Democrats seven of Colorado's eight Congressional seats.