US Supreme Court Expands Presidential Power Over Agencies, Spares Federal Reserve

On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several consequential rulings that collectively reshaped the landscape of presidential power over federal agencies and addressed election-related challenges. The most significant of these decisions expanded the President's authority to remove the heads of most independent federal agencies at will, overturning a long-standing 1935 precedent established in *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*. This landmark 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines with the conservative majority, empowers the President to dismiss officials from agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission, without needing to demonstrate 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office'. The ruling originated from a case involving former FTC member Rebecca Slaughter, whom President Donald Trump had dismissed over policy disagreements despite federal law stipulating 'for-cause' removal only. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, asserted that such removal protection for a single-director agency exercising substantial executive power violated the constitutional separation of powers. President Trump hailed the decision as a 'Historic and Unprecedented Ruling,' confirming presidential power to remove executive branch officers and agency appointees. Critics, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent, warned that the ruling could lead to increased politicization of key government regulatory functions and create instability. However, the Supreme Court simultaneously delivered a crucial carve-out to this expansion of presidential power, specifically protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve. In a separate 5-4 ruling, the Court blocked President Trump's immediate bid to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Trump had sought to oust Cook, a Biden nominee, citing unproven mortgage fraud allegations. The Court, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the three liberal justices in the majority, ruled that Trump had 'failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute'. The justices emphasized the Federal Reserve's 'unique historical status and role' in maintaining economic stability and its need for independence from political interference. While the ruling did not define what constitutes 'cause' for removal under the Federal Reserve Act, it clearly stated that Cook was entitled to proper notice, an explanation of the evidence, and an opportunity to respond before any removal could proceed. This decision safeguards the central bank's cherished independence against presidential attempts to influence its composition. Further demonstrating a mixed outcome for the Trump administration, the Supreme Court also rejected a Republican-led challenge to state laws permitting mail-in ballots to be counted days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked by Election Day. This 5-4 decision was a setback for Trump, who has consistently challenged the legitimacy of mail-in voting. The ruling spares election officials the burden of altering ballot rules ahead of upcoming midterm congressional elections and affirms the ability of states to implement such voting procedures. For an Indian audience, these rulings highlight the ongoing evolution of checks and balances within the U.S. democratic system. While presidential power saw an expansion in one significant area, the judiciary demonstrated its role in upholding institutional independence and ensuring due process, particularly concerning a critical body like the Federal Reserve, which influences global financial markets. The rulings underscore the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation and the continuous debate over executive authority versus independent governance in a major global democracy.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest