{"id":2621355,"date":"2026-06-30T08:29:59","date_gmt":"2026-06-30T12:29:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/here-are-the-key-takeaways-from-scotus-monday-decisions\/"},"modified":"2026-06-30T08:31:42","modified_gmt":"2026-06-30T12:31:42","slug":"here-are-the-key-takeaways-from-scotus-monday-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/here-are-the-key-takeaways-from-scotus-monday-decisions\/","title":{"rendered":"Here Are The Key Takeaways From SCOTUS&#8217; Monday Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">18<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fhere-are-the-key-takeaways-from-scotus-monday-decisions%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2621355&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>the article discusses four key decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of the 2025-26 term, highlighting meaningful rulings with political implications. The most notable is *Trump v. Slaughter*, where the Court overturned the 1935 precedent (*Humphrey\u2019s Executor*) and held that the President has plenary removal authority over federal agencies&#8217; officials, emphasizing the President&#8217;s power to remove subordinates at will. This ruling could reshape the administrative state by altering how federal agencies operate and possibly shrinking their size and influence.<\/p>\n<p>in *Trump v. Cook*, the Court limited its decision to the Federal Reserve System, ruling the president must provide notice and an prospect to respond before removing a board member, a narrower scope that does not broadly impact other agencies. Simultaneously occurring,*Watson v. Republican National Committee* involved Mississippi\u2019s election law allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day but received later; the Court upheld this law, emphasizing Congress can set clear deadlines for ballot receipt, but the decision&#8217;s impact is limited to ballots postmarked on Election Day.<\/p>\n<p>*Slaughter* stands out as the most consequential ruling, establishing the President\u2019s constitutional authority over agency removals and heralding potential shifts in the balance of power between the executive and Congress. The other decisions, while significant in their contexts, have more limited immediate effects.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>On Monday, the United States Supreme Court issued four decisions which, along with the opinions being released Tuesday, will wrap up the Court\u2019s 2025-26 term. While on paper it looked like a bad day for Trump, the Administration\u2019s win in the <em>Slaughter <\/em>case \u2014 wherein the Supreme Court held the president held absolute removal authority over agencies that exercise executive powers \u2014 far surpasses the narrow setbacks in the other cases.<\/p>\n<p>Here are the key holdings and ramifications from the three politically tinged cases, beginning first with Trump\u2019s huge victory.<\/p>\n<h2><a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/25-332_qn12.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Trump v. Slaughter<\/em><\/a><\/h2>\n<p>In <em>Trump v. Slaughter, <\/em>the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of Congress\u2019 \u201cfor cause\u201d removal statute for members of the Federal Trade Commission. Former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter had sued President Trump after he removed her from the FTC even though her five-year appointment was not due to expire until 2029. Slaughter argued that Trump lacked the authority to remove her from the FTC because Congress provided that commissioners could only be removed \u00a0for \u201cinefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,\u201d and Trump instead removed her because he believed her \u201ccontinued service on the FTC\u201d was inconsistent with his administration\u2019s priorities.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court in <em>Slaughter <\/em>held that the congressionally created for-cause \u201cprotection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.\u201d Specifically, the majority held that the \u201ctext, history, and structure\u201d of the Constitution establish that by vesting \u201c<em>the<\/em> Executive power\u201d in \u201c<em>a <\/em>President\u201d of the United States, the Constitution grants the president the power to \u201cremove his subordinates at will.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In reaching this conclusion, the high court expressly overruled <em>Humphrey\u2019s Executor<\/em>, which was a Supreme Court case from 1935, wherein the justices held the then-president lacked authority to fire FTC Commissioners at-will. The Court in <em>Humphrey\u2019s Executor<\/em> had reasoned that because FTC Commissioners \u201coccup[y] no place in the executive department and \u2026 exercise[] no part of the executive power vested by the Constitution in the President,\u201d Congress could limit their removal to \u201cfor-cause.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>After noting that <em>Humphrey\u2019s Executor <\/em>\u201chas not withstood the test of time,\u201d the Supreme Court made clear that \u201c[i]If anything more is left of <em>Humphrey\u2019s<\/em>, we overrule it.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><em>Slaughter<\/em>\u2019s holding, reasoning, and its express overruling of <em>Humphrey\u2019s Executor <\/em>have widespread ramifications, for there is no longer a headless fourth branch of government. Instead, the president is the head of agencies created by Congress to perform executive functions. And as the head of the agency, the president holds the authority to fire subordinates who fail to exercise his policy preferences. No longer, then, can bureaucrats \u2014 great or petty \u2014 thwart the president\u2019s agenda.<\/p>\n<p>This consequence may well lead to a further contracting of federal agencies as Congress, motivated by fear of a president \u2014 or of <em>this <\/em>president \u2014 may respond by either shuttering some federal agencies wholesale, or by greatly restricting their functions.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <em>Slaughter <\/em>thus promises significant changes to the administrative state, whether Congress shrinks federal agencies size and power or President Trump more forcefully directs the agencies to execute his policy choices.<\/p>\n<h2><a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/25a312_5468.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Trump v. Cook<\/em><\/a><\/h2>\n<p>Unlike <em>Slaughter<\/em>, which holds huge potential to restrain the administrative state and render presidents more responsive when negative consequences flow from the decisions of executive agencies, the Supreme Court\u2019s holding in <em>Trump v. Cook <\/em>has limited ramifications. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the president could not fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, without providing her notice \u201cof the charges made against [her]\u201d and \u201can opportunity to be heard in [her] defense.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <em>Cook<\/em>  was limited to members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and its rationale \u2014 which was based on the uniqueness of Federal Reserve and its control over the monetary system \u2014 does not translate to other federal agencies. Thus, <em>Cook <\/em>lacks the impact of <em>Slaughter<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Further, in <em>Cook<\/em>, the Supreme Court made clear that \u201ccause\u201d may exist to justify the president\u2019s removal of Cook. So, after Trump provides Cook with notice of his reasons for removing her from the Federal Reserve and she has an opportunity be respond, his decision to remove Cook could well be upheld. Given that Trump\u2019s reason for removing Cook was her alleged mortgage fraud, that outcome seems highly likely.<\/p>\n<p>While not an ideal situation for President Trump who seeks to exercise more control over the federal reserve, the precedential value of the case is extremely limited. Likewise, the federal reserve lacks the power to broadly interfere in Trump\u2019s policy preferences.<\/p>\n<h2><a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/24-1260_g3cn.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Watson v. Republican National Committee<\/em><\/a><\/h2>\n<p>The third case from yesterday holding a political angle was <em>Watson v. Republican National Committee<\/em>. Like <em>Cook<\/em>, that decision has a much narrower reach than the ramifications flowing from <em>Slaughter<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>In <em>Watson<\/em>, the Supreme Court considered whether Mississippi\u2019s election law which allows for the counting of ballots postmarked by Election Day, but received up to five days later, violates the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-to-review-legality-of-counting-mail-ballots-arriving-after-election-day\/\" title=\"... to review legality of counting mail ... arriving after ...\">federal election-day statutes<\/a>. A majority of the Court upheld the Mississippi statute, concluding that the federal \u201celection-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt.\u201d And the word \u201celection\u201d for purposes of the federal statutes that set the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as \u201celection\u201d day, means the day voters choose their candidate, the Court held. Accordingly, because under Mississippi law, voters must postmark their ballots by Election Day, the Supreme Court reasoned that the state law conformed with the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-set-to-decide-if-mail-in-ballots-can-be-counted-after-election-day\/\" title=\"... Set to Decide if Mail-In ... Can Be Counted After ...\">federal election-day statute<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Trump was <a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/politics\/trump-unloads-supreme-court-upholds-late-mail-in-ballots-mississippi\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">not happy<\/a> with the high court\u2019s ruling in <em>Watson<\/em>, but his response, namely calling for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, illustrate why <em>Watson<\/em> has limited reach: The Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <em>Watson <\/em>merely interpreted the current federal statutes and whether they allowed for ballots postmarked by Election Day but received after Election Day to be counted. The majority concluded Congress had not specified any date by which the ballots must be received, so if Congress were to do so, that would trump Mississippi and other states\u2019 laws to the contrary.<\/p>\n<p>The <em>Watson <\/em>decision was also limited to situations where the ballots were postmarked by Election Day. The opinion thus does not reach the question of whether ballots delivered after Election Day in bulk by an organization or a ballot harvester would satisfy the federal election-day statutes.<\/p>\n<p>However, rather than wait for some bright blue state to further destroy the sanctity of our elections by allowing such late-arriving ballots of questionable authenticity to decide our elections, Congress should move now to establish a clear deadline for both the dispatch and the receipt of ballot \u2014 namely Election Day. Doing so would render <em>Watson <\/em>a nullity.<\/p>\n<p>Congress, however, can do nothing to sidestep <em>Slaughter <\/em>because the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in that case rested on the Constitution\u2019s separation of powers. And while Congress may \u201cestablish independent agencies to assist it with its functions,\u201d \u201cit may not foist those agencies upon the President, and thus deprive him of \u2018the executive power vest [in him] by the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In the final analysis, then, <em>Slaughter <\/em>alone matters in the long term.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist\u2019s senior legal correspondent. Margot\u2019s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press.     She is also a regular guest on <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/democrats-alito-freakout-is-a-false-flag-operation-to-take-down-the-court\/\" title=\"Democrats are falsely targeting Alito to undermine the Court\">nationally syndicated radio programs<\/a> and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize\u2014the law school\u2019s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.      Cleveland is a former <a href=\"https:\/\/amzn.to\/3YuVZYV\" >full-time university faculty member<\/a> and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. Cleveland is also of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance.       Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can read more about her greatest accomplishments\u2014her dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court&#8217;s key rulings: Trump wins, agency powers shift<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2621357,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Panorama_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Building_at_Dusk-scaled.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[33651],"tags":[81957,81956,6994,47079],"class_list":["post-2621355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-western-journal","tag-lawhighlights","tag-legaldecisions","tag-scotus","tag-supremecourt"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/Panorama_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Building_at_Dusk-scaled.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2621355","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2621355"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2621355\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2621360,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2621355\/revisions\/2621360"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2621357"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2621355"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2621355"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2621355"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}