President Donald Trump experienced both significant victories and notable setbacks at the Supreme Court on Monday, as the justices issued a series of consequential decisions that reshaped the balance of presidential authority, election law and ongoing legal disputes.
The court's penultimate opinion day underscored the complexity of Trump's relationship with the nation's highest court. While the conservative majority dramatically expanded presidential authority over independent executive agencies, the justices also rejected one of the administration's election-related priorities, preserved procedural protections for a Federal Reserve governor and declined to intervene in a civil judgment against the president.
Taken together, the rulings illustrate that although the court's conservative majority has often embraced an expansive view of executive power, it has not uniformly sided with Trump when legal and procedural limits remain at issue.
Court Broadens Presidential Control Over Independent Agencies
The day's most significant decision came in a 6-3 ruling that allows Trump to remove Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, marking one of the most consequential expansions of presidential authority over the executive branch in decades.
The ruling overturns 91 years of precedent that had insulated leaders of certain independent agencies from removal without cause, a longstanding principle designed to give regulators independence from political pressure.
Trump celebrated the ruling, calling it the "greatest increase" in presidential power in a century.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts framed the decision as restoring constitutional accountability within the executive branch.
"When power is exercised well, the people know whom to thank; when power is exercised poorly, they know whom to blame—and whom to fire," Roberts wrote. "That is the very premise of our system of government."
The decision reaches well beyond the Federal Trade Commission. More than a dozen federal agencies have historically enjoyed similar protections for their leadership, including agencies overseeing nuclear energy, aviation safety, consumer product recalls and financial regulation.
The ruling represents a major victory for legal conservatives who have long argued that the Constitution places executive authority squarely under presidential control.
The court's liberal justices sharply disagreed.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision fundamentally alters the nation's constitutional structure by dramatically increasing presidential authority.
"Today, the Court discards that democratic regime in favor of one that distorts the structure of Government to fit the majority's theory of unitary, total executive control. The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before."
Justice Neil Gorsuch, while joining the majority, acknowledged that the ruling concentrates authority in the presidency but argued Congress retains the ability to reduce executive influence by limiting agencies' regulatory powers.
"The power to write new regulatory crimes still exists, but now the pen ultimately rests in the President's hand. The ability to judge disputes in-house remains, but now the house is white."
Roberts Delivers Both a Win and a Loss for Trump
Chief Justice Roberts found himself at the center of another closely watched case involving presidential authority.
In a separate 5-4 decision, Roberts ruled that Trump failed to provide Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook with sufficient due process before attempting to remove her over allegations of mortgage fraud. Cook has denied wrongdoing.
Rather than deciding whether Trump ultimately possesses the authority to dismiss Federal Reserve governors, the court limited its ruling to procedural requirements.
Roberts wrote that allowing the president to remove a Federal Reserve governor without notice or judicial review would permit dismissal "at any time, for any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after."
Importantly, Roberts emphasized that the ruling does not resolve the broader constitutional question regarding presidential authority over Federal Reserve governors.
Trump appeared to view the decision as only a temporary obstacle. Shortly after the ruling, he reiterated his effort to remove Cook, noting on Truth Social that the court's decision rested on a "strictly procedural basis" rather than a final determination of presidential authority.
The pair of rulings highlighted Roberts' continued effort to distinguish between expanding executive authority in principle while maintaining procedural safeguards in individual cases.
High Court Rejects Challenge to Mail-In Ballot Deadline
Trump suffered another significant setback when the Supreme Court upheld a Mississippi law permitting mail-in ballots to be counted if they arrive within five days after Election Day.
In another closely divided 5-4 ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett concluded that Mississippi's election procedures do not conflict with federal election law.
Writing for the majority, Barrett emphasized that the Constitution gives election administration primarily to lawmakers rather than the judiciary.
"The Framers recognized the difficulty of crafting election laws 'applicable to every probable change in the situation of the country,'" Barrett wrote. "So instead of constitutionalizing election law, they decided that a 'discretionary power over elections' needed to be lodged 'somewhere.' Suffice it to say, that power was not lodged in this court."
The ruling rejects an effort by the Republican National Committee to prohibit states from counting ballots received after Election Day if they were mailed on time.
Justice Samuel Alito authored the dissent, arguing that while early voting and mail voting have become common, federal law still requires elections to be effectively determined on Election Day.
"Today, not all voting occurs in person on Election Day," Alito wrote. "Both voting by mail and early voting have become popular... But acceptance of these practices cannot change the fact that under federal law, the electorate's collective choice must still be authoritatively expressed on Election Day."
Following the ruling, Trump renewed his call for Congress to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. However, he later acknowledged the legislation faced insufficient Republican support in the Senate.
Trump-Appointed Justices Cast Decisive Votes
Two Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump played decisive roles in rulings that went against the president.
Justice Barrett authored the majority opinion upholding Mississippi's mail ballot law, joining Roberts and the court's three liberal justices.
The decision represents a setback for Trump's long-running criticism of mail-in voting, which he has repeatedly argued contributes to widespread voter fraud despite a lack of supporting evidence.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh likewise joined Roberts and the court's liberal justices in the Federal Reserve case.
In a separate concurring opinion, Kavanaugh stressed the unique role of the nation's central bank and argued its independence deserves special consideration.
"Even temporary uncertainty about the status of the Federal Reserve could spark political upheaval, including confusion about whether the President could immediately remove multiple Governors at will, as well as turmoil in the U.S. and world economies. I would not go down that road."
The decisions again demonstrated that while Trump's appointees often align with the court's conservative bloc, they have shown a willingness to break with the administration in cases involving institutional concerns and procedural safeguards.
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Carroll Appeal
Before issuing Monday's opinions, the Supreme Court also dealt Trump another legal setback by declining to hear his appeal of a $5 million civil judgment involving writer E. Jean Carroll.
The jury previously found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll after she accused him of assaulting her in the mid-1990s. Trump has consistently denied her allegations.
As is customary, the Supreme Court offered no explanation for declining to hear the appeal, reflecting its longstanding practice of accepting only a small percentage of petitions each term.
Trump responded on Truth Social by expressing surprise at the court's decision.
"Surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to 'review' a Fake Case brought against me by a woman I never met (Decades old celebrity photo line, standing with her husband, does not count!)."
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."
A Day That Highlights the Court's Independent Course
Monday's decisions collectively illustrated the nuanced relationship between Trump and a Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative majority.
The court delivered one of the largest expansions of presidential authority in generations by allowing greater presidential control over independent executive agencies. At the same time, it declined to extend that authority immediately to the Federal Reserve, rejected a major challenge to state mail-ballot procedures and refused to revisit a civil verdict against the president.
Chief Justice Roberts emerged as the central figure in the day's rulings, writing opinions that simultaneously strengthened presidential authority while insisting that constitutional procedures and institutional safeguards remain in place.
