WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court concluded its term on July 07, 2026, issuing two rulings concerning presidential authority over regulatory agencies. In one ruling, the court granted the president broad authority to remove leaders of most regulatory agencies at will. In another, the court affirmed that Federal Reserve governors have for-cause removal protection.

The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, which granted the president the authority to fire at will any leader of a regulatory agency, with the Federal Reserve identified as an exception. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion for this case. In his opinion, Roberts stated, "To remain accountable to the President, those officers must be removable by the President."

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a solo concurrence in the Trump v. Slaughter case. He asked in his concurrence, "Would Congress have delegated so much power, including legislative and judicial power, to independent agencies had it known that the President would come to control them?" Gorsuch further inquired, "How will Congress respond now – if realistically it can?" and "And what, if anything, will this Court do about it?" The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in Trump v. Slaughter supporting President Donald Trump.

Separately, Chief Justice John Roberts also wrote the majority opinion in Trump v. Cook, affirming the for-cause removal protection for Federal Reserve governors. Roberts stated, "Not only the fact of independence but also the appearance of independence is key to the Federal Reserve's design." He wrote that the Federal Reserve's independence has its roots in its unique historical status and role. Roberts also noted, "To accept the Trump administration's arguments would turn for-cause protection into little more than at-will employment." Solicitor General D. John Sauer had argued that courts could not review the president's decision to remove a Federal Reserve governor.

Why It Matters

The Supreme Court's rulings balance presidential power over regulatory bodies with the established independence of the Federal Reserve. The decision in Trump v. Slaughter expands the president's ability to replace leaders of most federal regulatory agencies. This increased presidential control over regulatory agencies impacts how federal regulations are developed and implemented across various sectors.

Conversely, the ruling in Trump v. Cook maintains the existing for-cause removal protection for Federal Reserve governors. This decision reflects the judiciary's view on the Federal Reserve's unique role and its perceived need for independence, preventing a president from removing its leadership without cause. This distinction shows the court's view on the differing levels of insulating various government agencies from direct presidential influence.