In a set of split Supreme Court decisions on June 29, the justices gave President Donald Trump a major victory on presidential control over independent agencies while blocking him from immediately firing a Federal Reserve governor. The Court also upheld a Miss
For President Donald Trump. June 29 at the Supreme Court played out like a familiar political rhythm: momentum in one direction. a pause in another. The justices struck down a decades-old limit on how presidents can remove members of independent boards—an outcome Trump hailed as a “BIG WIN.” But they also rejected his bid to quickly remove a Federal Reserve governor. a reminder that not every fight over executive power ends the same way.
The Court’s rulings also cut directly into two other major flashpoints for Trump’s agenda—voting by mail and lawsuits tied to his personal conduct—while setting up more consequential decisions heading into June 30.
Trump’s “historic” win: the old firing rule is gone
In one of the most consequential decisions for the president’s control of federal agencies, the Supreme Court overturned a 90-year precedent in a case involving President Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee to the Federal Trade Commission.
The legal limit Trump faced dated to Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a precedent that had restricted how presidents could remove members of independent boards. Congress created various boards with representation from both parties. but Trump argued he should control every post in the executive branch by removing and replacing members at will.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that a president “must have the assistance of officers he can trust.”
Trump immediately framed the outcome as presidential power expanding beyond the constraints that had governed for generations. He posted on social media calling the decision a “BIG WIN” for presidential power. and he also wrote that it was “one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers. ” adding. “It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling.”.
The Court’s Fed setback: Cook can’t be fired immediately
On the same day, the Supreme Court delivered a different kind of message to the administration—one that came with a procedural constraint but also a clear substantive warning.
The justices blocked Trump from immediately firing Lisa Cook, a governor on the board of the Federal Reserve. Trump, who posted that the case was sent back to a lower court “on a strictly procedural basis,” tried to play down the impact.
But Chief Justice John Roberts. writing for the majority. emphasized that the Trump administration “has not shown that it is likely to prevail” at that lower court stage in defending how Cook was fired. Roberts also stressed that Congress established protections for the Fed’s governors and that the United States has a tradition of shielding central banking from political influence.
The Federal Reserve’s structure matters here: its board consists of governors nominated by presidents and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for staggered 14-year terms. It’s a regulator with the ability to influence inflation and employment through monetary policy.
Backing Trump’s firing of Cook would have increased the sensitivity of the Fed’s leadership to whichever administration currently occupies the Oval Office. Cook was nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed in 2022.
Trump argued he could remove Cook immediately. pointing to his allegations that she made misrepresentations affecting mortgage rates on two properties she purchased. Cook, for her part, said she was looking forward to “debunking” Trump’s allegations. She also argued the firing was unlawful because the Fed’s board is historically independent and its governors have statutory protections.
The mail-in ballot rule survives in Mississippi
If the Court’s decisions on agency power showed the president pushing and the justices drawing lines, the ruling on voting by mail showed that line-drawing too—this time with a state policy.
In a significant setback for Trump, the Supreme Court upheld a Mississippi law that allowed mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be received and counted later, specifically up to five days after the election.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court’s three liberal justices in backing the law. Barrett wrote that voters must make their decision by a specific day, rather than requiring ballots to be received on that day.
Trump has long opposed mail-in ballots, describing them as easily corrupted, although he voted by mail himself in March. He pointed to the Court’s decision as he continued pressuring Congress for additional restrictions. including requiring voters to provide identification at polling places and show proof of citizenship to register. and prohibiting mail-in ballots except for voters who are ill. traveling. or serving in the military.
Trump posted on social media that “There is no excuse for a politician, or otherwise, to be against the above three requirements,” then added, “There is only one reason to oppose – CHEATING!”
A 2025 report from the Brookings Institution found fraud cases related to voting by mail are extremely rare: about four cases for every 10 million mail-in votes. Studies have also shown that voting by noncitizens is virtually nonexistent.
The Carroll appeal: Supreme Court declines, $5 million remains in place
While Trump’s administration wrestled with agency leadership and election rules, the Court also left in place a personal loss that has kept reverberating through his legal orbit.
The Supreme Court decided not to review Trump’s appeal over his 2023 loss in a sexual abuse and defamation case. That choice means a New York federal jury’s 2023 award to former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll of $5 million remains intact. after the jury concluded Trump sexually abused her in a 1990s incident in a department store and then defamed her when he denied it in 2022.
Within hours of the decision, Carroll posted on social media, “This Win Is For Every Woman in the World!!”
The Supreme Court’s action does not affect a separate appeal connected to Carroll—one tied to an $83.3 million award from a separate New York federal jury to Carroll in 2024, based on the conclusion that Trump defamed her in 2019 when he denied her allegations. That appeal is still being litigated.
Trump posted that Carroll’s case. which was brought against him in a private capacity. “is really against the United States of America.” He added. “I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me. including the ridiculous claim of Defamation. with all of my power and strength.”.
The pattern across the day: bigger presidential reach, narrower battlefield outcomes
The Court’s decisions on June 29 map into a clear set of fault lines: the justices expanded presidential power by overturning the 90-year limit associated with Humphrey’s Executor in the FTC case involving Rebecca Slaughter. while simultaneously preserving limits through Fed protections by blocking Trump from immediately firing Lisa Cook. At the same time. the Court upheld Mississippi’s mail-in ballot approach—allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted after up to five days—while refusing to take up Trump’s sexual abuse appeal in the E. Jean Carroll matter that already produced a $5 million judgment.
Where Trump’s next Supreme Court fights could land
The June 29 rulings are not the end of the story. Trump has an interest in three remaining cases the Supreme Court is expected to decide June 30, though his biggest stakes appear tied to his proposed restrictions on birthright citizenship.
On the first day of his second term. Trump signed an executive order to limit citizenship to children born to citizens or legal permanent residents. The high court has for more than 125 years interpreted the Constitution’s 14th Amendment—which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”—as applying to all babies born in the country.
Trump became the first sitting president to attend a Supreme Court argument when the justices heard the birthright case April 1.
Two other pending decisions look set to touch on transgender athletes. The Court is expected to decide whether West Virginia and Idaho can ban transgender athletes from participating in female sports teams. Trump has been a vocal opponent of transgender athletes.
The final scheduled decision concerns campaign money. The Court will decide whether to discard one of the last checks on money in politics—after Republicans, including Vice President JD Vance, challenged 50-year-old limits capping how much parties can spend on campaigns coordinated with candidates.
Supreme Court Trump presidential power independent agencies Federal Reserve Lisa Cook FTC Rebecca Slaughter mail-in ballots Mississippi law E. Jean Carroll birthright citizenship transgender athletes campaign finance