The Supreme Court issued two back-to-back rulings on presidential removal power—siding with President Donald Trump to overturn longstanding protections for agency officials in Trump v. Slaughter, while preserving for-cause protections for the Federal Reserve B
On Monday, the Supreme Court put presidential power on the table twice—back to back, with rulings that looked like they could cancel each other out.
In one case, Trump v. Slaughter, the court sided with President Donald Trump and overturned roughly 90 years of precedent. The ruling said presidents can remove agency officials for any reason, so long as Congress has not limited that authority through for-cause removal protections.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority: “We hold that such protection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.”
Then came the next decision, Trump v. Cook. This time, Roberts drew a line. The same “unfettered” removal power did not apply to the Federal Reserve.
Roberts wrote that the Federal Reserve governors’ protection from removal is different—“consistent with the Constitution.” And while the court insisted the President could not be blocked from removal elsewhere. it refused to treat the Federal Reserve the same way. even as Trump attempted to fire Federal Reserve Board Gov. Lisa Cook for cause over claims of mortgage fraud that the text describes as made-up.
The logic was framed as a careful attempt to reconcile prior cases without treating them as controlling. In Slaughter, Roberts wrote: “Our prior cases do not necessarily implicate the constitutionality of such arrangements,” and that “Our opinion today should not be read to do so either.”
It still lands like a circle that doesn’t fully square. To make the two rulings fit together, the court leaned on a distinction rooted in the historical idea of central bank independence—arguing that the Federal Reserve is not just another executive branch regulator.
The court treated the Federal Reserve as a successor to the First and Second Banks of the United States—both created and folded in the early 19th century—even as the source material emphasizes that those earlier institutions did not engage in monetary regulation and were not part of the executive branch. Roberts’s key justification. as described in the account. was that “What matters is that the Federal Reserve remains ‘consistent with the principles that underpin’ the First and Second Banks—namely. that monetary policy should not be subject to political interference.”.
That is where the decisions become the most consequential for the everyday people watching Washington do something messy. The Supreme Court’s differentiation hinges on an analogy. and the outcome is stark: the court preserves for-cause removal protections for the people setting monetary policy. while limiting similar protections for other regulators.
There’s a second layer to that story, too. The source material argues the Federal Trade Commission—another executive branch agency—was created one year after the Federal Reserve and originally received the same for-cause removal protections for central bank governors. In other words. the account says the same kind of structure existed elsewhere. and the court’s approach moved in the opposite direction for regulators like the FTC.
In a concurrence in Cook. Justice Brett Kavanaugh—described as the only conservative who joined Roberts in the majority in both cases—offered a more direct. policy-focused reason for locking in the carveout for the Federal Reserve. He urged the court to state conclusively that the Federal Reserve could keep its for-cause removal protections. warning that if it didn’t. it would “create significant uncertainty” and “expose the Federal Reserve to political influences and jeopardize the efficacy of U. S. monetary policy.”.
Kavanaugh wrote that the Federal Reserve “maintains critical responsibility for the stability and success of the U. S. and world economies,” adding that political pressure could lead to “turmoil in the U. S. and world economies.” He concluded, “I would not go down that road.”
When the focus shifts from monetary policy to corporate regulation, the stakes sharpen.
Graham Steele, a former Treasury Department regulator under President Joe Biden and an expert on financial institutions, said the court’s position creates a hierarchy of protection—one for the Federal Reserve and another for other agencies that do regulatory work.
Steele said. “The court’s position that the Federal Reserve is special and has special protections but other agencies that engage in regulatory functions. like the Federal Trade Commission. are subject to partisan whims of this president – when put together underscores that. for this court. capital has a special status.”.
The source material frames the paired rulings as an extension of what it describes as a pattern of outcomes driven by the Roberts Court—achieving desired results through distinctions that can look contradictory when laid side by side.
And the court’s choices, as the account portrays them, don’t just rearrange legal theory. They shape who polices powerful companies, and how independent those watchdogs are.
The Federal Trade Commission. described as the chief antitrust and consumer protection regulator. can sue to break up monopolies. investigate and fine large corporations. and enforce consumer protections. Before Trump came into office. the FTC was investigating companies like Amazon and Meta. along with others. according to the source material.
The account paints the FTC as less aligned with capital than the Federal Reserve. It also says Trump benefited from his claims of unitary control over agencies like the FTC—describing how Amazon contributed $1 million to his inauguration. paid $28 million to first lady Melania Trump to make a documentary about her. and contributed to Trump’s White House ballroom construction project. The same section says the FTC settled an Amazon investigation that was set to go to a jury trial in a way described as beneficial for the company.
The source material adds that “countless stories of such pay-to-play scandals abound in the second Trump administration,” and then shifts to the human cost of losing independence.
Alvaro Bedoya, a former FTC commissioner fired alongside Rebecca Slaughter by Trump in 2025, described the ruling with anger. He said: “What this decision will do is let what has been a powerful corporate watchdog become a little lapdog for the president’s golfing buddies.”
Bedoya said it was “just how telling it is that this Supreme Court thinks that the bankers on Wall Street need their independent, above-the-fray regulator while the rest of us get stuck with the loyalists.”
The account closes the loop by returning to the pairing itself: Slaughter’s broad view of presidential removal power, and Cook’s carveout for the Federal Reserve.
In that framing, capital is protected twice—first through the preserved independence of the central bank, and then through the narrowing of protections for other regulators tasked with policing corporate power.
By the end of the day, the legal contradiction that initially looked like a mixed bag for President Donald Trump becomes something else: not a disagreement in outcomes, but a choice about where independent authority is allowed to stand.
Supreme Court Trump v. Slaughter Trump v. Cook presidential power for-cause removal protections Federal Reserve Lisa Cook John Roberts Brett Kavanaugh Federal Trade Commission corporate regulation antitrust consumer protection federal agencies corporate influence