The Supreme Court on Monday significantly broadened President Donald Trump’s authority over the federal bureaucracy while stopping short of allowing him to exert the same control over the Federal Reserve, issuing a pair of rulings that represent one of the most consequential decisions on presidential power in decades.

In a 6-3 decision divided along ideological lines, the justices overturned a nearly century-old precedent that allowed Congress to shield leaders of the Federal Trade Commission and roughly two dozen other independent regulatory agencies from political pressure by requiring presidents to provide cause before removing them.

The ruling is expected to bring sweeping changes to the structure of the federal government and fulfills a longstanding goal of the Trump administration and conservatives who have argued that the president should have broad authority over the executive branch.

In a separate but related case, a coalition of justices voted 5-4 to temporarily block Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The court found that the central bank’s unique history and structure permit Congress to provide special protections for its governors.

Taken together, the rulings delivered a mixed result for Trump, who has aggressively sought during his second term to expand presidential authority by removing agency heads, reorganizing departments and dismissing thousands of federal employees.

Trump celebrated the FTC ruling on Truth Social, calling it a “BIG WIN” and pledging to continue efforts to remove Cook.

“90 years of precedent has been COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY OVERRULED, greatly increasing Presidential Power at a time when it is most needed!” Trump wrote.

Republicans argued that the FTC decision would make the government more accountable to voters by strengthening presidential oversight. Democrats and some former officials, however, warned that it could inject politics into regulations governing product safety, elections, nuclear energy and other areas. The ruling involving Cook remains provisional and will return to lower courts for further proceedings.

The majority held that the Constitution’s plain language grants the president control over the executive branch. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court’s two other liberal justices, argued that the nation’s founders envisioned independent agencies whose autonomy could be protected by Congress. She read her dissent aloud from the bench to underscore her opposition.

“Today, the majority replaces 90 years of proven, workable practice with a half-baked theory of executive power that is simultaneously all encompassing yet also subject to necessary but undefined exceptions,” she wrote. “The one thing that does appear to be clear going forward is that chaos will follow.”

Sotomayor said the decision could reshape agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which Congress designed to rely on nonpartisan expertise and technical knowledge.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court’s conservative majority, concluded that the protections preventing the president from firing Democratic FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter were unconstitutional.

“We hold that such protection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution,” Roberts wrote.

In the Federal Reserve case, a cross-ideological majority ruled that Cook could remain in office while litigation over her dismissal proceeds through the courts. The case could take months or years to resolve and may eventually return to the Supreme Court.

Roberts, again writing for the majority, said Congress deliberately established the Federal Reserve as an institution independent of presidential control.

“Any change in that scheme must come from Congress, not the courts,” he wrote. “That is why we cannot accept the Government’s contentions in this case. To do so would allow the President to remove a member of the Federal Reserve at any time, for any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after.”

Four conservative justices dissented from that decision. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the ruling represented an unprecedented intrusion into presidential authority.

“Today’s decision is an unprecedented incursion on the Executive Branch,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “Neither the parties nor the Court can point to a single time in American history that this Court has upheld an injunction against the President’s removal of an executive officer.”

Trump fired Slaughter and fellow Democratic FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya without citing cause in March 2025 as part of a broader effort to remove officials he viewed as ideological opponents and replace them with allies.