Ninety years of precedent has been completely overruled
On the final days of its term, the Supreme Court both enlarged and constrained the American presidency in a single session, overturning ninety years of precedent to grant presidents sweeping power over independent regulators, while simultaneously protecting the Federal Reserve, upholding mail-in voting, and letting stand a multimillion-dollar judgment against Donald Trump. The day revealed a court that defies easy partisan categorization, one where Trump's own appointees sometimes formed the coalition that checked his ambitions. In the long arc of American constitutional history, Monday's rulings mark not a clean victory for any one vision of executive power, but a renegotiation of its boundaries — expansive in some directions, firmly walled in others.
- The court dismantled a ninety-year-old precedent in a single ruling, handing Trump the broadest expansion of presidential removal power in modern American history.
- Yet within the same session, a surprise coalition of conservatives and liberals blocked Trump's attempt to oust a Federal Reserve governor, with Chief Justice Roberts warning of 'calamities' if presidents could bend the central bank to their will.
- A second rebuke followed as Amy Coney Barrett — a Trump appointee — authored the majority opinion preserving states' authority to count mail-in ballots, dismissing the president's fraud claims as questions for democracy, not the courts, to resolve.
- Buried in the day's orders was a quiet but consequential refusal: the court declined to hear Trump's defamation appeal, letting a five-million-dollar judgment against him stand without a word of explanation.
- The day's scorecard left Trump celebrating a historic headline while absorbing three significant defeats, signaling that expanded presidential power and unchecked presidential power remain very different things.
The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a sweeping victory on Monday, then promptly showed him its limits. In a single session on the second-to-last day of its term, the justices dismantled nearly a century of legal precedent, blocked a presidential removal, upheld mail-in voting, and quietly declined to hear a defamation appeal — revealing a court divided not simply along partisan lines, but one where even Trump's own appointees sometimes ruled against him.
The marquee ruling concerned presidential authority over independent regulators. Since 1936, the court had held that presidents could not freely remove commissioners from agencies Congress had deliberately insulated from political control. On Monday, all six conservative justices voted to overturn that precedent entirely. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, argued that subordinates exercising presidential authority must remain removable by the president for democratic accountability to function. The decision reaches far beyond the Federal Trade Commission at issue — it touches regulators overseeing elections, communications, labor, finance, and the environment. Trump celebrated on Truth Social, declaring that ninety years of precedent had been 'completely and unequivocally overruled.'
Yet the same morning brought unexpected resistance. When Trump sought to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook — citing mortgage fraud allegations that masked a deeper disagreement over interest rate policy — he encountered a five-to-four majority that included Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh. Roberts wrote that Cook deserved the chance to challenge her removal and warned of the 'calamities' that could follow if presidents imposed their will on the central bank. In a third ruling, Barrett joined the liberals to preserve states' authority to count mail-in ballots arriving after election day, dismissing Trump's fraud concerns as matters for the democratic process rather than the judiciary.
Buried in the day's orders was one final blow: the court declined, without explanation, to review a five-million-dollar civil judgment against Trump stemming from a jury's finding that he had defamed E. Jean Carroll. Trump vowed to continue fighting, but the refusal likely closes this particular legal door — even as an eighty-three-million-dollar judgment in a separate Carroll case awaits its own appeal.
Taken together, Monday's rulings suggest that presidential power has grown, but not without constraint. Trump won the historic headline. He also learned that a six-justice conservative majority has its own internal limits — and that the court he helped shape will not always bend to his will.
The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a sweeping victory on Monday morning, then promptly showed him the limits of his power. On the second-to-last day of the term, the justices dismantled nearly a century of legal precedent in a single stroke, granting the president broad authority to remove and replace regulators from independent agencies across the federal government. But in the same session, a different coalition of justices blocked his attempt to oust a Federal Reserve board member, rejected his push to restrict mail-in voting, and quietly declined to hear his defamation appeal. The day illustrated a court divided not simply along partisan lines, but one where even Trump's own appointees sometimes sided against him.
The marquee ruling concerned presidential power over regulators. In 1936, the Supreme Court had unanimously decided that Franklin Roosevelt could not freely remove commissioners from agencies Congress had deliberately insulated from direct presidential control. That precedent stood for ninety years. On Monday, the court's six conservative justices—three appointed by Trump—voted to overturn it entirely. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, argued that subordinates exercising presidential authority must remain removable by the president, and that only through such accountability could the president himself answer to the people. The decision applies not just to the Federal Trade Commission at issue in the case, but to regulators across the government: those interpreting election law, setting communications policy, resolving labor disputes, and writing rules on finance and the environment. Trump celebrated the ruling on Truth Social, declaring that ninety years of precedent had been "completely and unequivocally overruled" and that presidential power had been "greatly increased at a time when it is most needed."
Yet the same morning brought unexpected resistance. When Trump sought to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, he encountered a five-to-four majority that included two conservatives: Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh. Trump had alleged Cook committed mortgage fraud, but the real dispute ran deeper—he disagreed with recent Fed decisions, including hers, not to lower interest rates. Roberts wrote that Cook deserved a chance to challenge the removal and rebut the accusations against her. He warned of the "calamities that could arise" if presidents could simply impose their will on the central bank. The message was clear: even with expanded removal power, there were boundaries.
A third ruling the same day reinforced that point. Trump had challenged a practice allowing states to count mail-in ballots postmarked by election day but arriving afterward. He alleged mail-in voting was susceptible to fraud. The court sided against him five to four, with Roberts joining the three liberal justices and Amy Coney Barrett—a Trump appointee—writing the majority opinion. Barrett cited the Constitution's grant of power to states over the "time, place and manner" of congressional elections, and dismissed Trump's fraud concerns as matters for the democratic process to resolve. Trump responded by calling on Congress to pass his election-reform package, which would sharply curtail mail-in voting. The Republican-controlled House had approved it, but Democrats and a handful of Republicans blocked a Senate vote.
Buried in twenty-eight pages of orders the court released Monday morning was a final blow: the justices declined to review Trump's appeal of a five-million-dollar civil judgment against him. The case stemmed from a 2023 jury finding that Trump had defamed E. Jean Carroll, a former magazine writer who accused him of sexually assaulting her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s. With no explanation, the court let the judgment stand. Trump posted on Truth Social that he would "continue the fight against this weaponization and lawfare case" with "all my power and strength," but the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeal likely closes this particular legal door. He still faces an eighty-three-million-dollar judgment in a separate Carroll case, which he plans to appeal.
The day's decisions revealed a court more complicated than simple conservative-versus-liberal divisions. Trump won the headline victory—a historic expansion of presidential authority that will accelerate policy swings as administrations change. But he also learned that even a six-justice conservative majority has limits, and that some of his own appointees will not always bend to his will. The rulings suggest that while presidential power has grown, it has not grown without constraint.
Citações Notáveis
Subordinates who exercise the president's power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the president, and the president to the people.— Chief Justice John Roberts, majority opinion on presidential removal power
The calamities that could arise if presidents were able to impose their will on the Federal Reserve— Chief Justice John Roberts, warning against unrestricted presidential power over the Fed
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
So Trump got what he wanted on regulatory power, but lost on the Fed and voting. Why does the regulatory win matter so much if he's losing elsewhere?
Because it's structural. The regulatory ruling doesn't just affect Trump—it affects every president going forward. He can now fire anyone running the FTC, the EPA, the CFPB. That's not a one-term advantage; it's a permanent shift in how government works.
And the Fed ruling? Why did Roberts and Kavanaugh break ranks there?
The Fed is different. It's explicitly designed to be insulated from political pressure so interest rates aren't manipulated for electoral gain. Roberts seemed genuinely worried about what happens if a president can just remove a Fed governor because he disagrees with rate decisions. That's not about Trump specifically—it's about the institution.
But Trump appointed Barrett, and she sided against him on mail-in voting. Does that surprise you?
Not really. Barrett wrote that states have constitutional power over election procedures, and that fraud concerns are for Congress to handle, not courts. She's being consistent with constitutional text, even if it frustrates Trump. That's actually what judicial independence looks like.
What about the Carroll defamation case being quietly rejected?
That one stings for Trump because there's no drama, no dissent, no explanation. The Court just said no. It means the five-million-dollar judgment stands, and he's out of legal moves on that one. The eighty-three-million case is still alive, but this door is closed.
So what's the real story here—did Trump win or lose?
He won the war but lost some battles. The regulatory power is enormous and permanent. But on his two immediate policy goals—lower rates and election restrictions—the Court said no. And that matters because it shows even his own justices won't rubber-stamp everything.