The US Supreme Court made a historic decision, divided into two fundamentally different directions, which radically changed the balance of power in favor of the White House, but put a definite limit on President Donald Trump's attempt to control the US central bank.
The two court decisions, announced in parallel by Chief Justice John Roberts, have enormous consequences for the American public administration and economy.
The end of independent agencies (Trump v. Slaughter)
By a majority of 6 to 3 votes (the conservative wing against the liberal judges), the Supreme Court ruled that the president has the right to fire at will the heads of independent regulatory agencies.
Overturning a 90-year-old precedent: The court completely overturned the landmark 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which protected members of independent commissions from political dismissals without good cause.
The case: The case arose from the firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), who was fired by Trump via email in March 2025 simply because her views were “incompatible with the administration's priorities“.
The court's reasoning: Chief Justice Roberts reasoned the decision with the so-called “single executive theory“: because these officials exercise executive authority, they must report directly to the president.
Affected agencies: This decision makes institutions such as the FTC, the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and other federal regulators extremely vulnerable to political purges.
Protecting the Federal Reserve (Trump v. Cook)
In a parallel but fundamentally different decision, passed by a narrow 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court blocked the immediate removal of Governor Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board.
Key alliance: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh (a Trump nominee) joined the three liberal justices to protect the central bank's independence.
Background to the conflict: Trump fired Lisa Cook (the first black woman on the Fed board) in August 2025, accusing her of mortgage fraud outside her government position - charges she vehemently denies. But critics say the real goal was to pressure the Fed to cut interest rates more quickly.
Why the court defended the Fed: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 specifically requires board members to be fired only "for cause." The court ruled that the Trump administration did not follow procedural requirements and that no president can fire Fed governors “without cause“.
Where is the catch? The decision was made on “strictly procedural grounds“. The case is being sent back for review to lower courts, where it will be proven whether the charges against Cook actually constitute “legal grounds“. Until the end of the legal battle, she remains in her post.
What are the consequences?
Business and financial markets on Wall Street reacted with relief to the decision for the Fed. The independence of the central bank is considered an absolute pillar for the stability of the US dollar and the government bond market. If Trump had been given the power to replace the Fed leadership at will, it would have raised huge concerns about runaway inflation and the politicization of interest rates.
At the same time, however, the rest of the federal bureaucracy in the US is coming under unprecedented and direct control of the White House.