The Supreme Court on Monday issued two consequential rulings reshaping presidential power and election administration. In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Court granted President Trump the authority to fire leaders of independent agencies without cause, overturning a precedent that had stood for 91 years. The case centered on Trump's March 2025 dismissal of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee.
Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, finding that statutory protections against such firings are unconstitutional. The ruling applies to most independent agencies within the executive branch, including the FTC, effectively eliminating the legal insulation Congress had used to shield certain officials from presidential removal. The decision marks a significant expansion of executive power, giving the White House direct control over bodies that had operated with bipartisan leadership structures.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, dissented. The vote split strictly along party-appointed lines, with the Court's six conservative justices in the majority. The ruling echoes earlier term decisions that similarly strengthened presidential authority over immigration enforcement and other executive functions.
Separately, the Court ruled 5-4 that states may count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, so long as they are postmarked by that day. The decision rejected a challenge by the Republican National Committee, which had argued that federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day. Justice Amy Coney Barrett cast a key vote siding with the Court's three liberal justices and one other conservative to form the majority.
The mail ballot ruling upholds laws in more than a dozen states that accept late-arriving ballots, a practice that has become a flashpoint in election integrity debates. Supporters argue it ensures military and overseas voters can participate, while critics contend it invites fraud and delays results. The two rulings together likely will shape the legal landscape for the 2026 midterm elections and future presidential power struggles.