WASHINGTON (Realist English). The US Supreme Court, once considered a restrained arbiter of constitutional disputes, has become the primary driving force behind the radical transformation of the American state.
Over the past two years, the Court, with a conservative 6–3 supermajority, has overturned presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, allowed the firing of heads of independent regulators without cause, approved the deportation of hundreds of thousands of migrants, and come close to abolishing the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.
At the same time, public trust in the Court has plummeted to 43% — dividing the country along party lines.
From the 1935 Precedent to “Total Control”: The Court Rewrites the Rules of Power
The most significant event of recent days was the ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, handed down on June 29. The Court, by a 6–3 majority, overturned the 90‑year‑old precedent of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which since 1935 had protected heads of independent regulatory agencies from political dismissals.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated: “Subordinates exercising presidential authority are subject to removal by him. Only then can they remain accountable to the president, and the president to the people.”
The ruling affects more than two dozen agencies — from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Henceforth, the president can fire any head of these agencies without cause — simply on the grounds that the official is “disloyal” or does not share his policies.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reading her dissent from the bench, accused the majority of “jettisoning the democratic regime in favour of a theory of total executive control.” “The result is a president with far more power than ever before,” she declared.
The Sole Exception: Why the Fed Survived
On the same day, the Court issued a second ruling — in Trump v. Cook — which proved to be an exception to the general rule. By a 5–4 majority, the Court blocked Trump’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
The key argument was procedural impropriety: Trump had not given Cook an opportunity to contest the mortgage fraud allegations against her. Chief Justice Roberts, who led this majority as well, warned of “calamities that could arise” if presidents were allowed to impose their will on the Federal Reserve.
As Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion, “I would not risk destabilising the US economy just so we could further ponder a question that we have been pondering in various forms for many years.” Cook herself called the ruling a victory not personal but institutional: “The independence of the Federal Reserve is essential to carrying out Congress’s mandate.”
Immigration, Elections and Other Fronts
The expansion of presidential power is not the only area where the Court is reshaping America. On June 25, the Court, by a 6–3 majority, allowed the Trump administration to strip Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from more than 350,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians, effectively approving their deportation. Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the ruling, wrote that courts cannot review the administration’s TPS decisions.
On the same day, the Court sided with the administration on the procedure for processing asylum applications. And in February, the Court blocked Trump’s attempt to impose global tariffs under emergency powers.
However, in some matters the Court has constrained the president. On June 29, it allowed 18 states to count mail‑in ballots received after Election Day — a decision Trump actively opposed. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump, wrote the majority opinion, noting that states have broad authority to set the “times, places and manner” of elections.
The Current Composition of the Court
The current composition of the Supreme Court, where six of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents, is a vivid example of how presidential election outcomes shape the country’s highest judicial body for decades.
The Constitution does not establish formal requirements for candidates (such as a law degree or a minimum age). However, in practice, all justices are experienced lawyers. Presidents typically select candidates whose ideology aligns with their own.
One of the key features is lifetime appointment. Justices serve “during good behaviour,” which in practice means they can remain on the Court until death or voluntary retirement. A justice can be removed only through impeachment. This is intended to ensure their independence from political influence. The average tenure of a justice is about 16 years, though some serve much longer.
A Divided Society: The Court Has Lost Trust
While the Court reshapes the structure of government, its own authority in the eyes of Americans is rapidly eroding. According to a May 2026 poll, approval of the Supreme Court’s performance fell to 46% — down from 54% in March 2025. A year earlier, the figure was just 43%.
The partisan divide has become catastrophic: 78% of Republicans approve of the Court’s work, but only 17% of Democrats. As Courthouse News notes, “trust in the Court shows less sharp partisan polarisation than the Supreme Court, potentially offering a better foundation for restoring legitimacy.”
At the same time, 61% of Americans believe that Trump “almost always or in most cases” wins in the Supreme Court. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy said: “The Supreme Court has become a willing partner in President Trump’s authoritarian power grab.”
The US Supreme Court has transformed from a restrained constitutional arbiter into an active creator of political reality. Over two years, the conservative supermajority has overturned century‑old precedents, expanded presidential power to unprecedented levels, and reshaped the structure of the federal government.
The price of these transformations is the rapid erosion of trust in the Court and the deepening of partisan divisions in the country. The question is whether this Court will become an instrument of long‑term stability or whether its rulings will undermine the very legitimacy of the American judicial system.