Supreme Court Term: Conservative Wins and Trump Losses

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded its 2025-2026 term with a series of landmark rulings that fundamentally reshaped American governance, delivering enduring conservative victories while simultaneously dealing President Donald Trump notable defeats on several high-profile priorities. The term will be remembered most for overturning a 91-year-old precedent to dramatically expand presidential power over independent federal agencies.

A Historic Expansion of Presidential Power

The most consequential ruling of the term came in Trump v. Slaughter, where the Court voted 6-3 that President Trump could fire members of independent federal agencies — specifically FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter — without cause. The decision overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a landmark 1935 precedent from the New Deal era that had protected independent agency heads from at-will presidential removal for 91 years.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, declared: “Subordinates who exercise the president’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the president, and the president to the people.”

The ruling gives presidents broad authority to remove leaders of agencies including the FTC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Labor Relations Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission — approximately two dozen agencies in total. The decision effectively eliminates Congress’s ability to create bipartisan, independent commissions insulated from political pressure, meaning regulatory policy may swing more dramatically between administrations.

As BBC News reported, Trump celebrated the decision on Truth Social, calling it “one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers.” He added that “ninety years of precedent has been completely and unequivocally overruled, greatly increasing presidential power at a time when it is most needed!”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a blistering dissent, writing that the Court “gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted, elevating him above his once-coequal branches.” She warned that “the one thing that does appear to be clear going forward is that chaos will follow.” The dissent was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Rebecca Slaughter, the fired FTC commissioner, expressed profound disappointment, stating that “independence allows the decision-making that is done by these boards and commissions to be on the merits, about the facts, and about protecting the interests of the American people.”

The Federal Reserve Exception

In a notable counterpoint to the expansion of presidential power, the Court ruled 5-4 in Cook v. Trump to block Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, preserving the central bank’s independence. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three liberal justices in the majority, creating a rare cross-ideological coalition that broke from the term’s otherwise partisan pattern.

No president since the central bank’s founding in 1913 had sought to oust a Fed governor. Trump had cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations — which Cook denies — as justification for the firing, though critics argued the real motive was Trump’s frustration with the Fed’s refusal to lower interest rates.

The Court emphasized the unique importance of Federal Reserve independence, with Roberts writing that “not only the fact of independence but also the appearance of independence is key to the Federal Reserve’s design.” The majority warned of “calamities that could arise” if presidents were able to impose their will on the central bank. Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein told Al Jazeera that Trump’s “effort to seize control of the Federal Reserve Board and manipulate monetary policy for his political benefit is permanently blocked.”

Birthright Citizenship Upheld

In another significant defeat for the president, the Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Barbara that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil, striking down Trump’s executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship. The ruling reaffirmed a constitutional principle that has been settled law for more than 150 years.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts joined the three liberal justices in the majority, while Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented. Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately, agreeing the order was unlawful but partially dissenting from the majority opinion. Trump responded by calling the decision “too bad” and urging Congress to pass legislation adopting his proposed restrictions.

ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang, who argued the case, said the “decision reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen. A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat.”

Mail-in Ballots and the Carroll Case

The Court also dealt Trump losses on two other fronts. In a 5-4 ruling, the justices upheld a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to five days later, with Justice Barrett writing the majority opinion. She wrote that “federal law dictates when ballots must be cast, state law governs when they must be received,” adding that “nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day.”

Trump called the decision a “tremendous loss” and urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, his voting reform package that would significantly curtail mail-in voting. While the Republican-controlled House has approved the legislation, Democrats and a handful of Republicans have blocked a vote in the Senate.

Additionally, the Court declined to review the $5 million civil defamation judgment against Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case, effectively ending his appeal. The decision, buried among 28 pages of court orders, marked the final chapter in a case stemming from a 2023 jury finding that Trump had defamed Carroll, who accused him of sexual assault. Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan said the decision “affirms once and for all the jury’s unanimous verdict.” Trump vowed to continue fighting, calling it a “ridiculous claim of defamation.”

Conservative Victories on Transgender Athletes and Campaign Finance

On the final day of the term, the Court delivered two significant conservative wins. In West Virginia v. B.J.P., the justices ruled 6-3 that states may ban transgender athletes from female school sports teams. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that schools “may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex.”

In NRSC v. FEC, the Court struck down limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates, citing First Amendment protections. Justice Kavanaugh again wrote for the 6-3 conservative majority, stating the decision “treats all political parties equally.”

Cross-Ideological Coalitions and the Term’s Legacy

A defining feature of this term was the formation of cross-ideological majorities in several key cases. Roberts and Kavanaugh joined liberals on the Cook (Fed) case; Barrett and Roberts joined liberals on mail-in ballots and birthright citizenship. This suggests that while the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority remains powerful, there are limits to conservative solidarity — particularly on issues involving institutional integrity and constitutional text.

The term also demonstrated the solidarity of the Court’s three liberal justices — Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson — who voted as a bloc in nearly every major case with partisan implications. Their dissents, particularly Sotomayor’s in the Slaughter case, are likely to be cited for years as powerful critiques of the conservative majority’s jurisprudence.

What to Watch For

The long-term implications of this term are profound. Trump now has sweeping authority to reshape independent agencies, raising questions about how aggressively he will wield this power in the coming months. The decision effectively eliminates the bipartisan structure of commissions like the FTC, meaning future presidents of either party will have greater control over regulatory policy.

Congress may attempt to legislatively respond to the overturning of Humphrey’s Executor, though such efforts face long odds in the current political environment. The midterm elections in November 2026 will also test how the Court’s rulings — particularly on mail-in voting and campaign finance — affect the political landscape. Democrats have signaled they will make the Court’s decisions a campaign issue, while Republicans are likely to celebrate the expansion of executive power and the victories on transgender athletes and campaign finance.

As the justices depart for summer recess until October, one thing is clear: the 2025-2026 term will be studied for years as a pivotal moment in the evolution of American constitutional law, one that simultaneously expanded and constrained presidential power in ways that will shape governance for generations to come.