The Supreme Court has handed down a major administrative-law ruling, siding with President Donald Trump in a dispute over the firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and sharply expanding presidential removal authority over independent agencies. In doing so, the Court overruled Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 precedent that had long been understood to shield FTC commissioners from removal except for cause.

The case, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, is likely to become a cornerstone decision in the Court’s modern separation-of-powers jurisprudence.

In one of the most closely watched separation-of-powers developments of the Supreme Court’s recent term, the Court declined—for now—to let President Trump remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, signaling that the Federal Reserve may occupy a different constitutional space than other independent agencies. The move stands out all the more because the Court’s broader rulings this term generally expanded presidential authority to remove executive officials.

The litigation is unfolding through multiple levels of the federal courts, including Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, Applicant v. Lisa D. Cook, Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, et al. at the Supreme Court and Lisa Cook v. Donald Trump, et al in the D.C. Circuit.

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the government’s application for a stay in Trump v. Cook, leaving in place a lower-court order that allows Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to remain in office while her challenge to an attempted removal proceeds. The order is procedural, not a final ruling on the merits. But for lawyers watching the Court’s approach to presidential control over independent institutions, it is a meaningful development.

The dispute arises from the Trump administration’s attempt to remove Cook from the Federal Reserve Board.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a major administrative-law ruling with immediate consequences for federal agencies, regulated businesses, and the lawyers who advise them.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a consequential separation-of-powers decision, ruling 6-3 that the president may remove FTC commissioners at will. In doing so, the Court allowed President Donald Trump’s firing of Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter to stand and overturned the longstanding 1935 precedent of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had insulated FTC commissioners from removal except for cause.

The dispute, now reflected on Docket Alarm as Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, marks one of the Court’s most significant recent statements on presidential control over the administrative state.

The Supreme Court’s latest action backing President Trump’s firing of an FTC member is likely to reverberate well beyond the Federal Trade Commission. For lawyers tracking the administrative state, the immediate takeaway is not just about one personnel dispute—it is about the Court’s growing willingness to reconsider how much insulation Congress can give independent agencies from presidential control.

That shift matters because many enforcement and rulemaking frameworks rest on the assumption that certain regulators can operate with a measure of independence from the White House.

The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in a closely watched asylum-processing dispute, overturning a lower-court ruling that had blocked the policy as unlawful. The decision gives the federal government wider room to structure how asylum claims are handled at the border and underscores the Court’s continued attention to the scope of executive authority in immigration enforcement.

At a high level, the case centered on whether the administration’s asylum-processing framework was consistent with governing immigration statutes and the procedural limits imposed by federal law.

A federal judge has indefinitely blocked a Trump-backed “anti-weaponization” fund, extending what appears to be one of the more consequential early checks on the administration’s effort to steer federal money toward politically charged priorities. While the underlying program has been framed as a response to alleged government “weaponization,” the court’s ruling keeps the fund on ice while the litigation proceeds and signals substantial judicial concern with how the program was created and would be administered.

Although the full contours of the ruling will matter, the immediate takeaway is straightforward: the court found enough legal risk to justify stopping the flow of money now, rather than trying to unwind grants later.

A federal judge in Virginia has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from taking further steps to establish or operate a proposed $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” a program designed to compensate individuals the administration says were harmed by government “weaponization.” U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema’s order pauses the initiative for at least two weeks while the court considers a broader legal challenge alleging political discrimination and unlawful government action.

The dispute is now playing out in the Eastern District of Virginia in Floyd et al v. Department of Justice et al. At this early stage, the court’s intervention is significant less for what it finally decides than for what it immediately prevents: the administration cannot move forward with implementing a fund of substantial size and political consequence until the legality of the program is tested.

For litigators, the order is a reminder that courts remain willing to scrutinize fast-moving executive programs when challengers frame concrete constitutional or administrative harms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has temporarily paused a U.S. Court of International Trade ruling that would have halted collection of tariffs imposed under President Trump’s trade program, preserving the status quo while appellate review moves forward. The order keeps the tariffs in place for now in a closely watched dispute over the scope of presidential trade authority and the limits of emergency-based executive action.

The litigation includes challenges brought by states and private importers, including State of Oregon v. Trump, now before the Federal Circuit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has struck down a Trump-era executive order that sought to suspend access to asylum at the southern border, holding that the president cannot use a proclamation to override the asylum process Congress created in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The ruling is significant because it reinforces a basic separation-of-powers principle in the immigration context: where a federal statute gives noncitizens the right to apply for asylum, the executive branch cannot eliminate that statutory pathway by unilateral order.

The U.S. Supreme Court moved a major Trump-related dispute onto its docket, signaling that the justices are prepared to weigh in on one of the most legally and politically charged issues of the term: the challenge to President Donald Trump’s birthright-citizenship executive order and, just as importantly, the scope of nationwide injunctions entered against federal policy.

The case, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Applicants v. CASA, Inc., et al., arises from litigation brought by CASA and states opposing the order.

Litigation tied to the Trump administration remains one of the most consequential forces in federal courts, even when no single case captures the entire story. Across disputes involving executive authority, agency data access, immigration enforcement, and the boundaries between government power and the legal profession, courts are continuing to issue rulings that will shape public-law litigation for years.

One recent flashpoint involves challenges requiring agencies to justify contested access to government data, underscoring how Trump-era governance disputes have expanded beyond headline policy fights into core questions of administrative structure, privacy, and statutory authority.

The U.S. Supreme Court remains at the center of some of the most consequential constitutional disputes carried over from the Trump era, with the pending birthright-citizenship fight standing out as one of the term’s most closely watched matters.