WASHINGTON (Realist English). On June 29, the US Supreme Court issued two landmark rulings that fundamentally alter the balance of power between the president and independent federal agencies.
In one case, the justices dramatically expanded the chief executive’s authority, allowing him to remove heads of independent agencies without cause. In the other, they dealt a sensitive blow to Donald Trump by blocking his attempt to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
These two verdicts, handed down on the same day, reveal the court’s dual approach: maximising presidential control over the bureaucratic apparatus while preserving the “sacred independence” of the nation’s central bank, which sets US monetary policy.
Blow to Independence: Court Allows Firing of Agency Heads
In the case involving Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Slaughter, the justices ruled by a vote of 6 to 3 that the president has the power to remove heads of independent agencies without stating a reason.
This decision overturned the 1935 precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which for nearly a century had protected the heads of such agencies from political pressure.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated: “The President must have assistants whom he can trust. Neither Congress nor the courts can impose on him those with whom he cannot work.” The ruling applies to more than two dozen agencies — from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The court’s liberal wing strongly dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reading her dissenting opinion from the bench, declared: “Today the court jettisons the democratic regime in favour of a theory of total executive control. The result is a president with far more power than ever before.”
Exception for the Fed: Why Cook Remained in Office
Separately, the court considered Trump’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook, who had been appointed to a 14‑year term on the Fed’s Board of Governors under President Joe Biden. Trump announced his decision in August 2025 on Truth Social, accusing Cook of mortgage fraud.
The Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, rejected the administration’s request and kept Cook in her position. The key argument was procedural impropriety: Trump had not provided Cook with a proper opportunity to contest the allegations against her.
Chief Justice Roberts, again writing for the majority, stressed: “The President did not provide Cook with the procedural protections to which she was entitled by law. Without such protections, she could not properly contest the charges.” He added that Fed governors “do not serve at the President’s pleasure” and can be removed only “for cause.” “Any change to this scheme must come from Congress, not from the courts,” Roberts concluded.
The temporary nature of the ruling underscores that the legal battle over Cook’s removal is not yet over. The case is remanded to lower courts, where the administration must prove the fraud allegations, and Cook will have the opportunity to challenge them.
Reaction and Significance: Trump’s Win and Loss
Trump welcomed the FTC ruling, calling it on Truth Social “historic and unprecedented.” The decision allows him to unilaterally remove the heads of dozens of regulators appointed under the previous administration and replace them with loyalists.
However, the blocking of Cook’s firing was a serious setback for the president. As the BBC notes, the ruling affirms the independence of the Federal Reserve. Trump, who has repeatedly criticised the Fed for not cutting rates fast enough, failed to gain immediate control over the central bank.
Cook herself called the court’s decision a victory not personal but institutional: “The independence of the Federal Reserve is essential to carrying out Congress’s mandate of price stability and maximum employment. I am grateful for this decision not for myself, but for the American people.”
The two Supreme Court rulings, issued on the same day, paint a complex picture. On the one hand, the court gave the president unprecedented power over the federal bureaucracy. On the other, it erected a formidable barrier against politicising the Federal Reserve, preserving its unique status.
As Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion, “today’s temporary ruling does not decide whether the president can lawfully remove Cook for cause.” The final answer to that question still lies ahead.