Supreme Court rules Trump cannot fire Fed member Lisa Cook; grants him more power over other independent agencies

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News

June 29, 2026, 10:21 AM EDT / Updated June 29, 2026, 10:27 AM EDT


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a setback to President Donald Trump, rejecting his attempt to fire Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, while in a separate case giving him a freer hand to exert control over other hitherto independent federal agencies.

The two decisions, issued at the same time and both authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, together marked another example of the conservative-majority court pushing back on one aspect of Trump’s broad exertion of executive power while giving him the green light on another. Though Trump may not fire Cook for now, the court allowed him to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.

In the latter case, the court overturned a key 1935 Supreme Court ruling called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld restrictions on the president’s power to fire FTC members. The court in effect created a Federal Reserve exception to its general view — long-favored by conservatives suspicious of what some term a federal bureaucratic “deep state” — that restrictions on the president’s power to fire members of federal agencies imposed by Congress were an unconstitutional restriction of executive authority.

So, while Cook can remain in office for now, the court granted Trump free rein to continue firing members of agencies that were specifically set up by Congress to be free of political interference. The court concluded that the Federal Reserve is different from other independent agencies, in part based on its unique structure and history.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-fire-fed-member-lisa-cook-grants-powe-rcna234931

---

Links to ORDERS (PDF)

Cook: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a312_5468.pdf

Slaughter: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_qn12.pdf


Article updated.

Original article -

Jun. 29, 2026, 10:21 AM EDT


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a setback to President Donald Trump, rejecting his attempt to fire Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, while in a separate case giving him a freer hand to exert control over other hitherto independent federal agencies.

The two decisions, issued at the same time and both authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, together marked another example of the conservative-majority court pushing back on one aspect of Trump's broad exertion of executive power while giving him the green light on another. Though Trump may not fire Cook for now, the court allowed him to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.

The court in effect created a Federal Reserve exception to its general view -- long-favored by conservatives suspicious of what some term a federal bureaucratic "deep state" -- that restrictions on the president's power to fire members of federal agencies imposed by Congress were an unconstitutional restriction of executive authority.

So, while Cook can remain in office for now, the court granted Trump free rein to continue firing members of agencies that were specifically set up by Congress to be free of political interference. The court concluded that the Federal Reserve is different from other independent agencies, in part based on its unique structure and history.

[SamuelAdams]

1. It's a huge win that Lisa Cook is protected.

But Congress has a lot to do to fix this mess. Norms apparently don't matter. They must put explicit rules in place limiting presidential power.

[sop]

2. "The Federal Reserve is different from other independent agencies..."

Last edited Mon Jun 29, 2026, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)

The Roberts Court has to protect monied interests from Trump's meddling at the Federal Reserve, they don't care about other federal agencies.

[Bengus81]

3. Three losses for Trump this morning and COUNTING......

Mail in ballot LOSS too!!!

Bawhahahhahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!

[cliffside]

4. Live Updates: Supreme Court Expands Presidential Power Over Regulators, but Blocks Fed Firing for Now

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/06/29/us/trump-supreme-court-presidential-power?unlocked_article_code=1.t1A.SgZE.RiOJvT0IoYbH&smid=url-share


"President Trump’s firing of an F.T.C. commissioner tested a precedent that has insulated independent regulators. But the justices carved out the “unique role” of the Federal Reserve.

...In a major expansion of presidential authority, the Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for President Trump to fire independent government regulators despite federal laws meant to protect their jobs. But the justices separately carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve, preventing the president from immediately removing Lisa D. Cook from the powerful central bank.

The court’s 6-to-3 ruling to broadly allow the firings, with the three liberal justices dissenting, represented a significant shift in power from Congress to the president and could usher in a drastic change to the federal government’s structure by giving the president more direct control over independent agencies.

The decision in favor of Lisa Cook is limited. She cannot be removed while the litigation proceeds, the court rules. But, as Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh writes in a concurring opinion, “today’s interim ruling does not decide whether the president may lawfully remove Governor Cook for cause.”

[Igel]

10. A lot of SCOTUS decisions are against injunctions.

Not really appeals of rulings as to the cases involved.

The distinction really matters. Even the geofencing case was remanded for further analysis, whatever pundits and commentators say about its finality--what's final is whether it's a search under 4A, not whether it's a permissible search. So it's a battlefield win for the plaintiff but not victory in war.

SCOTUSblog: "By a vote of 6-3, the justices sent Okello Chatrie’s case back to the lower court for it to consider whether, as the Fourth Amendment requires, the search was “reasonable.”

[dalton99a]

5. The next Democratic president must fire all Trump regulators on day one

[NCDem47]

8. I though the same thing.

What's good for the goose...

[WestMichRad]

6. "Independent" agencies?

Not so much, obviously.

[dave99]

7. Those 6 Republican REALLY HATE the United States.

[Cheezoholic]

9. So the only way Congress can control this now is to not fund these agencies? Works right into Project 2025 n/t

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. Sotomayor blasts court's ruling allowing Trump to fire agency heads

With palpable anger, the Obama appointee read for 20 minutes from her sharp dissent, calling the decision one that “reshapes the structure of government.

Sotomayor blasts court’s ruling allowing Trump to fire agency heads

With palpable anger, the Obama appointee read for 20 minutes from her sharp dissent, calling the decision one that “reshapes the structure of government.”

— Julianne McShane (@juliannemcshane.bsky.social) 2026-06-29T15:44:38.222Z

https://www.ms.now/news/sonia-sotomayor-fiery-dissent-slaughter-case

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a fiery dissent Monday in the Supreme Court’s decision backing President Donald Trump’s power to fire members of independent federal agencies, describing the Republican-appointed majority’s ruling as one that cuts away at the Constitution.

Inside the chambers, Sotomayor spent nearly 20 minutes reading from the bench her dissenting opinion in Trump v. Slaughter — an uncommon practice for a dissenting justice.

In a defiant tone, and with palpable anger, she described the decision held as one that “reshapes the structure of government in a fundamental way,” by giving the president “a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted, elevating him above his once-coequal branches.”

The decision allowing Trump to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, without cause upends a 1935 precedent that had protected the independence of agencies.

In doing so, Sotomayor said, the court is transforming the president’s “duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed into a license to act in defiance of those very laws.”

Alito has been getting pissed at Justice Sotomayor's dissents. It will be interesting to see how Alito reacts

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

12. Sounds like they want to bring back the "Spoils System"

From the phrase "to the victor go the spoils". A president hired his lackies to government jobs regardless of qualifications.

[Karma13612]

13. Well, on the bright side

Doesn’t this mean we can get rid of the head of the USPS?

Or does that not fall under the domain affected by this ruling?

[onenote]

14. Not clear how this decision impacts the Postal Service.

Unlike members of the "independent" agencies addressed in the Slaughter decision, the postmaster general is selected and appointed by the Board of Governors of the Postal Service, which is appointed by the president. The postmaster general then also sits on the board. The appointment of the postmaster general does not require Senate confirmation and the postmaster general can only be dismissed by the Board of Governors. It seems likely that the Slaughter decision opens the door for the president to fire sitting postal service governors and install replacements who could then remove the Postmaster General.

[mdbl]

15. The Not-So-Supreme court's fascist 6 are disgusting

They don't give a shit about our country.

[D. Spaulding]

16. So they basically put the kibosh on any independent agency?

That's insane.