The US Supreme Court delivered two landmark rulings on 29 June that reshape the boundaries of presidential authority over independent federal agencies. In a 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, the court overturned a 1935 precedent and held that the president may remove members of the Federal Trade Commission without cause, effectively ending statutory tenure protections for leaders of most independent regulatory bodies. Simultaneously, a 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Cook blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, citing procedural due process and the central bank’s distinct historical independence. The split outcome grants the White House sweeping new control over agencies that oversee competition, labour, elections and consumer safety, while reaffirming that the Fed’s monetary policy role remains shielded from direct political interference.

The White House, in a series of Truth Social posts, hailed the Slaughter ruling as “the greatest increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years” and a long-sought victory for executive authority. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, declared that “subordinates who exercise the president’s power are subject to removal by him,” and that Congress cannot impose for-cause protections on officials wielding substantial executive power. The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor warning that the decision leaves the president “with far greater power than ever before” and dismantles a century-old framework designed to insulate regulatory expertise from partisan pressure. In the Cook case, Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberal wing to form a narrow majority, emphasising that the Federal Reserve’s governors “do not serve at the president’s pleasure” and that removing one without notice or a hearing would risk “calamities” for the economy.

The Slaughter decision effectively nullifies the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling and exposes more than two dozen agencies—including the National Labor Relations Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Election Commission—to at-will dismissals. Viewed from Washington, the ruling fulfils a decades-long conservative legal campaign to advance the “unitary executive” theory, which holds that the president must control all executive-branch functions. Analysts in European capitals note that the shift could inject greater policy volatility into US regulatory enforcement, as incoming presidents may now purge agency leaderships wholesale. The Cook ruling, by contrast, draws a bright line around the central bank. The court’s opinion canvassed the history of American central banking from the Bank of North America onward, concluding that the Fed’s independence is “rooted in the nation’s history and tradition” and essential to maintaining public confidence in monetary policy.

The rulings arrive amid a broader assertion of executive power by the Trump administration, which has also tested limits on birthright citizenship, trade tariffs, and criminal investigations of former Fed Chair Jerome Powell. The Cook litigation now returns to lower courts, where the governor will have an opportunity to contest the mortgage-fraud allegations the White House cited as cause for her removal; Trump vowed on social media to “take appropriate action immediately” to prevent her from participating in Fed decisions. The Slaughter ruling is final and immediately effective, and legal observers in the United States expect the administration to move swiftly to replace Democratic appointees at multiple independent agencies. The court’s term is set to conclude with further decisions on presidential authority, including a closely watched case on birthright citizenship.