On June 30, the Supreme Court concluded one of the most litigious terms of Chief Justice John Roberts’s tenure, with the court addressing a litany of issues touching on some of the most loaded topics in American politics today.
Some of its most significant rulings this term—the first full term for the court under President Donald Trump’s second administration—have had wide-reaching effects on the limits of executive power.
In several key cases, the court authorized expansions of executive power, while limiting it in others.
Here are some key cases where the Supreme Court gave the White House new authority—or reined it in.
In an opinion delivered on June 29, the Supreme Court upheld Trump’s removal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Rebecca Slaughter, overturning a 91-year-old precedent that had broadly insulated the commissioner of the agency from removal.
In the lead-up to that decision in the case Trump v. Slaughter, the president attempted to remove several top administrative officials, claiming such authority, but the attempts had been blocked in lower courts.
These courts cited Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a landmark 1935 case that prohibited the president from firing an FTC commissioner over ideological disagreements.
Slaughter was among those fired by Trump. She sued, arguing that Trump violated federal law by removing her.
In Trump v. Slaughter, a 6–3 majority on the court overturned Humphrey’s Executor, affirming that the president could remove independent agency heads.
Critics of the decision expressed concern that the ruling would give presidents too much power and undercut the independence of agencies like the FTC.
Others speculated that the decision wouldn’t end at the FTC, despite Roberts’s stating it only applied to that agency.
In related emergency docket rulings, the Supreme Court indicated it was willing to remove protections for other agencies.
During its previous term, the Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of plaintiffs from the National Labor Relations Board and consumer safety officials who had been removed by Trump.
But the court has also indicated that these powers have limits, denying Trump’s bid to remove Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook while litigation on the issue moved forward.
In a key ruling issued on June 25 in the case Mullin v. Doe, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians and Syrians currently residing in the United States under the program.
In a 6–3 decision, the court said that lower courts had overstepped their authority in blocking Trump’s decisions to end those statuses.
That decision focused on a portion of the Immigration and Nationality Act that states, “There is no judicial review of any determination of the [DHS Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection.”
Lower courts had blocked the department’s decisions, holding that the administration didn’t follow the proper procedures for revoking protected status. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said judicial review of TPS designations was limited to constitutional challenges.
One judge suggested that the department’s revocation of Haitians’ protected status was motivated by racial discrimination and likely violated the Constitution.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, citing the administration’s broader opposition to the program as it applied to other nationalities.
Justice Elena Kagan penned a dissent that was joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor.
The decision is expected to affect thousands of Haitians and Syrians who received temporary protected status, and clears the way for Trump to end TPS protections for other groups once renewals come due.
In a Feb. 20 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down several tariffs imposed on foreign nations by Trump using an emergency powers law, saying that the president had exceeded his authority in his use of the statute.
Trump had previously declared a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, saying the tariffs were needed to stem the flow of illegal drugs and to combat “large and persistent” trade deficits with foreign nations.
The act generally gives the president the power to regulate imports to address emergencies, but debate ensued over what that meant in practice.
Writing for the 6–3 majority, Roberts rejected Trump’s arguments, saying that the law’s phrasing did not clearly authorize tariffs.
The majority opinion tied the ruling to the major questions doctrine, a legal doctrine that courts apply to prevent federal agencies or the president from making massive policy changes without explicit congressional approval.
Roberts wrote that even if Trump had the authority to impose tariffs under the statute, his international tariffs had far exceeded the scope of that authority under the major questions doctrine.
The ruling left tariffs imposed through other laws intact, and Trump quickly used another law to reimpose some of the challenged tariffs. That decision was rejected by a lower court but could reach the Supreme Court for further litigation.
In June, the Supreme Court also voted to uphold tariffs that Trump had imposed on China during his first term.
—Joseph Lord
BOOKMARKS
FIFA has rejected Belgium’s appeal of a decision allowing U.S. striker Folarin Balogun to play in Monday’s World Cup match despite receiving a red card in the American team’s previous game. President Donald Trump said on Monday that he called FIFA’s president about the red card and asked for a review.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signed a law Monday requiring the largest artificial intelligence companies to open their safety practices to independent outside audits. “We must protect our people from the dangers of AI while still harnessing the unique potential of the technology,” Pritzker said at the signing.
New Jersey recently enacted a law that lets voters and advocacy groups sue over election practices they say disadvantage minority voters. Check out Chase Smith’s latest report for the details.
The president launched Trump accounts, which are savings accounts for children, in a special Oval Office ceremony on Monday. “The American dream belongs to every child, and today we are equipping the next generation with the right to claim their rightful share of it,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.
Microsoft is eliminating approximately 1,600 positions from its Xbox gaming division, with more job cuts to come in 2027. “Our business today is not healthy,” Xbox CEO Asha Sharma wrote in a message to employees.
—Stacy Robinson
