Donald Trump secured a significant victory at the US Supreme Court on Monday after the justices expanded presidential authority over independent federal regulators. However, the court also handed the president three notable defeats, underscoring that its conservative majority is not always aligned with his agenda.

Get today's headlines by email

The rulings, issued on the second-to-last day of the court's current term, covered presidential powers, election rules, the Federal Reserve and one of Trump's long-running legal battles.

Court Expands Presidential Authority

In its most consequential decision, the Supreme Court overturned a nearly century-old precedent that had limited a president's ability to remove officials serving on independent regulatory agencies.

Writing for the six-member conservative majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said officials exercising executive authority must remain accountable to the president and, ultimately, to voters through the elected executive.

The decision reverses a landmark ruling dating back to the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and gives Trump, as well as future presidents, broader authority to dismiss and replace officials leading agencies that Congress had intended to operate independently.

Although the case centred on the Federal Trade Commission, the ruling is expected to affect numerous agencies responsible for elections, communications, labour, finance and environmental regulation.

Trump welcomed the decision on his Truth Social platform, saying it had "greatly" increased presidential power.

Federal Reserve Ruling Limits Trump's Reach

Despite the sweeping ruling on executive authority, the court refused to extend that reasoning to Trump's effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

In a 5-4 decision, Roberts and conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court's three liberal justices in allowing Cook to challenge her dismissal.

Trump has accused Cook of mortgage fraud, although the dispute has also unfolded against the backdrop of his criticism of the Federal Reserve's refusal to lower interest rates.

Roberts wrote that Cook should have the opportunity to contest the allegations against her, while warning of the serious consequences that could arise if presidents were able to exert direct control over the central bank.

The decision represented a significant setback for Trump, whose administration has repeatedly criticised the Federal Reserve's monetary policy.

Court Rejects Trump on Mail-In Ballots

Trump also lost a separate case involving mail-in voting.

In another 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of states to count mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterwards, rejecting Trump's challenge.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Roberts and the court's three liberal justices, wrote that the US Constitution gives states broad authority to determine the "time, place and manner" of congressional elections.

The majority also dismissed Trump's arguments that mail-in voting is particularly vulnerable to fraud, indicating that such policy questions should be addressed through the political process rather than the courts.

Following the ruling, Trump renewed his call for Congress to pass legislation restricting mail-in voting. Although the Republican-controlled House has approved the measure, it has not advanced in the Senate.

Appeal in Carroll Defamation Case Rejected

The Supreme Court also quietly declined to hear Trump's appeal of the $5 million civil judgment awarded to writer E. Jean Carroll after a jury found he had defamed her.

The justices provided no explanation for declining the case, leaving intact the 2023 verdict.

Trump criticised the decision on social media and vowed to continue challenging what he described as "lawfare" against him.

The ruling effectively ends Trump's effort to overturn the $5 million judgment, although he is continuing to appeal a separate case in which a jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in damages.

Monday's decisions highlighted the complex relationship between Trump and a Supreme Court with a conservative majority. While the court significantly strengthened presidential authority over independent agencies, it also blocked the president on key priorities involving the Federal Reserve, mail-in voting and one of his most prominent legal appeals.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 30 June 2026

View full article

the win more than makes up for the losses

26 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

the win more than makes up for the losses

But that win is also subject to having a Senate that will confirm the replacements to fired agency heads.

9 minutes ago, JerryM said:

But that win is also subject to having a Senate that will confirm the replacements to fired agency heads.

thats fine

5 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

thats fine

Maybe fine with you. But Trump doesn't like The Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA)

4 minutes ago, JerryM said:

Maybe fine with you. But Trump doesn't like The Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA)

sucks to be him then. i dont walk in lockstep with him

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

sucks to be him then. i dont walk in lockstep with him

Yeah it's tough to be a winner

4 minutes ago, JerryM said:

Yeah it's tough to be a winner

fabulous isnt it. that doctrine has been an abomination for years

6 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

fabulous isnt it. that doctrine has been an abomination for years

Well the Supreme court has said so. Now comes the semi-abomination.

Birthright is the big one. Which way will it go?

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Birthright is the big one. Which way will it go?

If you are born on US soil, you are a citizen.

5 minutes ago, TedG said:

If you are born on US soil, you are a citizen.

Birthright tourism. The Chinese love it.

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Birthright tourism. The Chinese love it.

This is the frustration that people have with it. People cross the border and pop out a kid, then get benefits.

2 minutes ago, TedG said:

This is the frustration that people have with it. People cross the border and pop out a kid, then get benefits.

its congresses job. either way its a win tho

13 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Birthright is the big one. Which way will it go?

It may be decided on a strictly procedural basis: Does the President have the right to change a long-standing interpretation of a constitutional amendment via executive order.

3 minutes ago, JerryM said:

It may be decided on a strictly procedural basis: Does the President have the right to change a long-standing interpretation of a constitutional amendment via executive order.

You have said the crux of the matter. A "long standing interpretation". Will this "interpretation" be rejected by SCOTUS as being an incorrect interpretation is the question.

56 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

You have said the crux of the matter. A "long standing interpretation". Will this "interpretation" be rejected by SCOTUS as being an incorrect interpretation is the question.

But that interpretation is not out of the vapor -- it relates to landmark 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

the win more than makes up for the losses

The “big win“ is future thinking by SCOTUS. It makes it easy to fire all the incompetent sycophants Trump had appointed as soon as a reasonable president gets into power.

10 minutes ago, gargamon said:

The “big win“ is future thinking by SCOTUS. It makes it easy to fire all the incompetent sycophants Trump had appointed as soon as a reasonable president gets into power.

sure lol. glad you agree with the trump admin and the supreme court then.

which incompetent sycophants are covered by this decision btw

16 minutes ago, JerryM said:

But that interpretation is not out of the vapor -- it relates to landmark 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,

The interpretation of "jurisdiction' is central to this.

5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

The interpretation of "jurisdiction' is central to this.

I don't know that it will get to that notion if they reject -- as they have mostly indicated in oral hearings -- that the change cannot be by executive order.

29 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

which incompetent sycophants are covered by this decision btw

All of them, excluding the ones on the FED of course.

E. Jean Carroll +5M

Trump +0

Hey, I guess Donnie was wrong. They won't just let you do it. I mean, you can do it, but it's gonna cost ya! 😭

Bill: High Class Wannabe Short Fingered Vulgarian from Queens Manhandling a High Class Manhattan Hello Kitty without permission= $5,000,000.00 USD, only cash accepted pay up you bum

I'll give this post 😡 ❤️ ❤️ ❤️.

I'm just wondering if they are tired of all the winning yet?

Voting by mail is open to fraud, in the USA and elsewhere.

4 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Voting by mail is open to fraud, in the USA and elsewhere.

Ballot harvesting in CA is a problem.

https://calvoter.org/content/heres-what-you-need-know-about-ballot-harvesting-california-yes-its-legal

In 2016, the law changed again thanks to Assembly Bill 1921. Now, anyone could return another person’s ballot and there was no limit on how many ballots a person could return.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trouble-ballot-harvesting

2 hours ago, TedG said:

Ballot harvesting in CA is a problem.

https://calvoter.org/content/heres-what-you-need-know-about-ballot-harvesting-california-yes-its-legal

In 2016, the law changed again thanks to Assembly Bill 1921. Now, anyone could return another person’s ballot and there was no limit on how many ballots a person could return.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trouble-ballot-harvesting

You need to look up word 'return': it does not mean 'vote in place of'. Mail in votes are checked. Trump voted by mail ferchrissakes...

Widespread? In your deluded dreams: " In the highly contested state of Pennsylvania, Heritage data goes back 30 years and covers 32 elections with over 100 million votes cast and found only 39 cases of voter fraud." Can't recall which state, but 4 cases of fraud were done by REPUBLICANs voting on dead peoples ballots.

"The percentage of fraudulent votes in Arizona over the last 25 years of elections was a minuscule .0000845%, and no election outcome in the U.S. has ever been altered by ballot fraud."

This is from the conservative long term BROOKINGS INSTITUTE, not some Qanon basket basement cases.

Here is the link: read for yourself and see you can comprehend

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/

5 hours ago, TedG said:

If you are born on US soil, you are a citizen.

US should have a simple voting system like Australia.When a migrant arrives in the country thet go on a tempory or bridging visa for 2 years and then can get a permanent visa.Yhey can then apply for citiznship and having got that can then vote in elections.They then have to show ID at the polling booth and voting is compulsory.

4 hours ago, TedG said:

Ballot harvesting in CA is a problem.

https://calvoter.org/content/heres-what-you-need-know-about-ballot-harvesting-california-yes-its-legal

In 2016, the law changed again thanks to Assembly Bill 1921. Now, anyone could return another person’s ballot and there was no limit on how many ballots a person could return.

https://www.cato.org/blog/trouble-ballot-harvesting

Not a problem for the GOP in California, it seems! 😃

"But for the 2024 election, the California GOP is going big on collecting ballots from voters and dropping them off at election offices or polling places, which is legal in California, with some conditions." 

https://calmatters.org/politics/2023/10/california-election-voting-republicans/