...
By Robert Alexander
Senior Crime & Court Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Supreme Court is poised to revisit decades-old limits on presidential control over federal agencies, a move that could give President Donald Trump broad new authority to fire executive branch officials at will.
Cases on the Court’s docket challenge the protections that have historically insulated members of independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve from removal without cause.
Why It Matters
At stake is the basic balance of power inside the federal government. If the Supreme Court expands the president’s authority to fire officials at will and continues to approve sweeping policy changes through emergency orders, it could erode the long-standing guardrails meant to keep federal agencies insulated from partisan control.
Read More on Politics
Such a shift would enable the White House to rapidly replace independent regulators, carry out major immigration and enforcement actions before courts can review them, and make it more difficult to unwind policies once implemented.
The result could be a presidency with far greater reach over economic regulation, immigration, and criminal justice—and fewer practical checks on abrupt changes in direction.
...
What To Know
One pending dispute involves the dismissal of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, whom Trump removed earlier this year.
The Court declined to block her ouster while it considers whether statutory protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers and whether Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 decision that upheld such limits, should be overruled.
Another case concerns Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, whom the Court temporarily shielded from removal until it can hear arguments in January.
Legal analysts, including former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, say these challenges could allow the president “to reshape the federal bureaucracy to an even greater extent” if the Court broadens removal power.
The removal disputes come amid a broader shift in how the Court manages high-stakes presidential policies.
In the first 20 weeks of Trump’s second term, the administration sought emergency action by the justices 19 times—the same number of requests the Biden administration made over four years—and “has done very well in those cases,” Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on Substack.
The Court has granted at least some relief in 10 of the 12 applications it has decided so far.
Emergency Actions and Immigration Cases
Two recent immigration cases highlight the Court’s readiness to intervene before full merits review. In Noem v. Doe, decided May 30, the Court allowed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to terminate the “CHNV” parole program for nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela while litigation proceeds.
Lower courts had blocked DHS’s mass termination, reasoning that federal law requires parole decisions to be made on an individual basis.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissented, writing that the majority had “plainly botched” the harm analysis and that the government “require[d] next to nothing” to show irreparable injury, while “devastating consequences” could follow for hundreds of thousands of noncitizens.
Weeks later, in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., the Court stayed a Massachusetts district court injunction that had required DHS to give written notice and a “meaningful opportunity” to seek protection under the Convention Against Torture before removing migrants to third countries.
The dissent, authored by Sotomayor and joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Jackson, criticized the government’s conduct, describing deportations carried out in defiance of earlier orders as “a gross abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion” and warning against rushing “in matters of life and death.”
Critics argue that these emergency rulings—often issued without a full briefing or detailed explanation—risk solidifying major policy shifts before courts can assess their legality.
As Jackson noted in Noem, stays are meant to “reduce the real-world consequences of the unavoidable, pending-case-related delay,” not accelerate them.
Vance has similarly warned that once mass personnel actions or deportations occur, “it is often not possible to ever unring the bell.”
Supporters of the Court’s approach emphasize flexibility and caution about premature decisions.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh has argued that detailed opinions at the emergency stage risk a “lock-in effect,” potentially constraining the Court before it fully considers a case.
However, lower court judges from across the ideological spectrum have repeatedly emphasized that clear reasoning is crucial when interim rulings effectively determine outcomes.
Expanding Executive Reach Beyond Immigration
The scope of presidential authority is also being tested beyond personnel decisions. The Court will hear arguments (scheduled for November 5, 2025) on whether the president can impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a statute that does not mention tariffs but that the administration argues allows them during a declared emergency.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has reversed course on capital punishment.
In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi lifted the 2021 moratorium on executions, directing prosecutors to “seek the death penalty in appropriate cases” and implementing President Trump’s Executive Order 14164 on “Restoring the Death Penalty and Protecting Public Safety.”
The memo said prior leaders had “supplanted the will of the people with their own personal beliefs” by declining capital charges and commuting sentences.
What People Are Saying
Judge Clay D. Land, Middle District of Georgia, in a May decision: “Allowing constitutional rights to be dependent upon the grace of the executive branch would be a dereliction of duty by this third and independent branch of government and would be against the public interest.”
Justice Elena Kagan, at a judicial conference in California in July: “Courts are supposed to explain things. Offering reasons for judicial decisions is an essential protection against arbitrary power—to ensure that like cases are being treated alike.”
Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, on Substack: “Once agencies are gutted, migrants deported, and major policies implemented, it is often not possible to ever unring the bell and return to the prior status quo.”
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court will hear key cases this term that could dramatically expand presidential control over the federal government, including whether Trump can fire officials at independent agencies without cause.
At the same time, the justices are weighing how readily to allow sweeping policy changes, from immigration enforcement to economic regulation, to take effect through emergency orders before full review. Lower courts have pushed back on many Trump initiatives, but the administration has succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to pause those rulings while appeals proceed.
The outcomes will determine how much power presidents can wield quickly and how strong judicial checks remain in the face of abrupt shifts in government policy.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines