The U.S. Supreme Court on June 29 issued a pair of significant rulings that expand presidential authority over federal agencies, marking a major shift in the balance of power between the executive branch and independent regulatory bodies. The decisions, which break sharply along ideological lines, uphold President Donald Trump’s dismissal of certain federal agency leaders while preserving the independence of the Federal Reserve, underscoring the central bank’s unique status in the federal government.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court overturned a nearly century-old precedent established by the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, which had restricted the president’s ability to remove members of independent commissions like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The majority found that such restrictions on presidential removal powers interfere with the Constitution’s separation of powers, emphasizing the president’s need to control executive officers to maintain accountability. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that presidents must be able to remove subordinates at will to ensure faithful execution of the laws, and that protections limiting removal without cause are inconsistent with the executive function.

This ruling applies not only to the FTC but also extends to other regulatory agencies including the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These agencies, which oversee wide-reaching areas such as labor relations, product safety, and nuclear regulation, had been granted statutory protections to shield board members from politically motivated firings. The court’s decision empowers the president to remove these officials without providing cause, a development that President Trump welcomed as a historic enhancement of presidential power.

Conversely, in a separate 5-4 decision, the justices protected the Federal Reserve’s independence by blocking Trump’s attempt to immediately remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The court ruled that Fed governors, who serve fixed terms and have traditionally been insulated from at-will dismissal, cannot be abruptly removed without due process. Roberts wrote that permitting such removals without notice and the opportunity for a hearing would undermine both the reality and appearance of the Fed’s autonomy, which is critical for effective monetary policy and financial market stability.

Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Fed’s Board of Governors, was appointed by President Joe Biden and has denied allegations that she committed mortgage fraud—claims cited by the Trump administration as the basis for attempting to remove her. The legal challenge to her dismissal remains pending in the courts, and the Supreme Court’s ruling allows her to retain her position while the litigation proceeds. Trump has indicated plans to pursue removal through appropriate procedural channels.

The contrasting outcomes highlight the court’s nuanced approach: affirming extensive presidential control over executive agencies responsible for regulatory enforcement, while maintaining safeguards for the Federal Reserve given its pivotal role in the economy. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented on both rulings, warning that expanding executive authority risks destabilizing independent governance and undermines the constitutional structure designed to balance power. Sotomayor cautioned that the majority’s decisions grant the president “far greater power than ever before,” potentially leading to greater political interference in policymaking.

These decisions arrive amid President Trump’s ongoing efforts to reshape federal governance and regulatory policy. Since firing multiple commissioners from key agencies—including the FTC and labor boards—Trump has advocated for enhanced presidential oversight, arguing it improves accountability to the electorate. Critics contend this undermines the independence and expertise of regulatory bodies designed to operate free from political pressure.

The rulings are expected to have broad implications for the structure and operation of the federal government, potentially affecting how agencies enforce laws and oversee critical sectors of the economy. On financial markets, the preservation of the Federal Reserve’s autonomy was welcomed as a stabilizing factor, while the expanded presidential removal power over independent agencies signals a significant shift toward a more unitary executive framework. Legal experts foresee continued debate and litigation over the scope of these changes and their long-term impact on governance and regulatory independence.