Supreme Court expands presidential firing power, overturning 90-year-old ruling

US Supreme Court building with columns and American flag at sunrise

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission are unconstitutional and overturned a 90-year-old decision that allowed Congress to shield members of certain independent agencies from being fired by the president at will. The decision from the high court expands the president’s power over many independent boards and commissions, which Congress had insulated from political pressure by saying their members could only be removed by the president for cause. In a 1935 decision in a case known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which involved removal protections for the FTC, the Supreme Court said Congress could restrict the president’s ability to fire officials from multi-member agencies at will.  But the ruling from the high court’s conservative majority in the case Trump v. Slaughter overturns that 90-year-old decision and marks the culmination of a years-long weakening of the New Deal-era precedent. 

The court’s ruling The ruling was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, joined by the other conservative justices. The three liberals dissented, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her dissent from the bench, a rare occurrence that signals strong disagreement with a decision. Roberts wrote that limits on the president’s ability to fire those who wield executive power on his behalf infringe on his constitutional authority. The FTC of today, the court’s majority found, “unquestionably” exercises executive powers and therefore must be under the president’s control. “Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work,” Roberts wrote. “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.”

The decision is likely to have ramifications beyond the FTC. Congress has created more than two dozen multi-member agencies led by officials who can be removed by the president only for cause, which typically means instances of inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Among those agencies likely to be affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling are the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Labor Relations Board. In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor warned that while those agencies remain, they now take on a new form that differs from what Congress intended when they were created. “Put simply, today the majority reshapes our Government. Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President’s hands,” she wrote. President Trump cheered the decision as the “Greatest Increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years. Such a Monumental Ruling at such an important time!”

The Slaughter case Mr. Trump has sought to test the bounds of his executive power since returning to the White House for his second term in January 2025, including by firing a slew of officials appointed by Democratic presidents at multi-member boards and commissions without cause. Among those was Rebecca Slaughter, whom Mr. Trump appointed to the FTC during his first term. She was reappointed to the trade commission by President Joe Biden.  Slaughter was informed in March 2025 that her service on the FTC was “inconsistent” with the Trump administration’s priorities and was fired from her post without cause. That clashed with the law that established the FTC in 1914, when Congress said commissioners could only be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Slaughter filed a lawsuit challenging her removal and argued Mr. Trump broke the law when he fired her. A federal district court ruled in her favor and ordered Slaughter to be reinstated to her post. The U.S. appeals court in Washington, D.C., eventually agreed that she could continue in her job at the trade commission, but last September, the Supreme Court allowed Mr. Trump to fire her while it considered the legality of removal protections for FTC members.

Before agreeing to decide Slaughter’s case, the Supreme Court had also cleared the way for Mr. Trump to oust members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission. But the high court has so far spared two other officials from removal while litigation continues: Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, and Shira Perlmutter, the register of copyrights. The justices heard arguments in January over whether to allow Mr. Trump to fire Cook from the Fed Board. The Supreme Court has indicated before that it views the Fed differently than other independent agencies, calling it a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks.” In an opinion also authored by Roberts, the high court rejected Mr. Trump’s attempt to fire Cook while the challenge to her removal moved forward.  The Supreme Court reiterated in its ruling involving the FTC that it does not implicate the constitutionality of the Fed’s removal restrictions. It also stressed that the decision does not address tenure protections for judges on the U.S. Tax Court or the Court of Federal Claims, with Roberts writing that the justices are leaving “those questions for another day.”

“All we do today is recognize what has been clear for a century — that those who fall within the President’s ‘general administrative control’ must be removable by the President at will,” he wrote. The high court’s decision in Slaughter’s case is the latest in a line of recent decisions that chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor and expanded the president’s power over independent agencies. The Supreme Court invalidated removal protections for the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2020 and the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2021.

Source: Supreme Court expands presidential firing power, overturning 90-year-old ruling – CBS News

The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious, But the lips of a fool shall swallow him up.
Ecclesiastes 10:12

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Supreme Court Backs Trump on Asylum Policy, TPS Deportations

The U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump administration two major victories on immigration Thursday, allowing stricter asylum enforcement and clearing the way for the removal of temporary protected status from hundreds of thousands of migrants. In a 6-3 ruling, the court found the administration can end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 300,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrian refugees. The decision means many people who have legally lived and worked in the United States for years after fleeing war or natural disasters could now face deportation. The court’s conservative majority ruled that lower courts exceeded their authority by blocking the Department of Homeland Security’s decision and rejected claims that ending protections for Haitians was discriminatory.

In a separate 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that migrants who present themselves for asylum while still in Mexico are not entitled to seek asylum because they have not yet entered the United States. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing the ruling could encourage more dangerous illegal border crossings. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the decision reflects a straightforward reading of federal law. The rulings come as advocacy groups representing DACA recipients, also known as Dreamers, have filed a new lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of delaying renewals that allow recipients to legally work and study in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security said DACA recipients are not automatically protected from deportation.

Source: Supreme Court Backs Trump on Asylum Policy, TPS Deportations

But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
Matthew 6:33

Prayer for Boldness; Acts 4:24-31

When opposition rises against God’s people, the natural response is often fear. Yet the early church teaches us that the answer to intimidation is not retreat, but prayer to…

Keep reading

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

SCOTUS Could Strike Down EPA’s Unconstitutional Overreach

photo of an government building at spring

The EPA under the Biden Administration crafted a cap-and-trade scheme to allocate market share in the multibillion-dollar hydrofluorocarbons industry — including to “new market participants” based on the promotion of “equity.” Now, one of the businesses the EPA rendered a market-share loser under the federal agency’s unconstitutional take-over of the hydrofluorocarbon industry seeks review by the Supreme Court. And that pending petition represents a sleeper case that could implode much of the administrative state if it makes it onto the high court’s docket next term. Next Thursday, the Supreme Court will conference over the pending petition for review, called a petition for certiorari, in the case of RMS of Georgia, LLC, dba Choice Refrigerants v. EPA.

The petitioner, known more widely as Choice Refrigerants, is a small business operating out of Georgia which invested in patented blends of refrigerants for air conditioning and other products in the early 2000s. At the time, the EPA encouraged the development of hydrofluorocarbons to replace the ozone-depleting refrigerants then on the market. In December of 2020, Congress passed a statute called the AIM Act, short for the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020, which mandated a phasedown in the United States of hydrofluorocarbons using a cap-and-trade program. The AIM Act provided for a phased elimination of 85% of hydrofluorocarbons produced in, or imported to, the United States. While Congress detailed in the AIM Act the cap for each phase of the plan to reduce hydrofluorocarbons, the statute provided no direction for the EPA to decide who should receive “allowances” under the law.

With no guidance from Congress, the EPA invented its own standards for doling out allowances, with the EPA reserving millions of allowances for “new entrants.” The EPA’s final rule from October 5, 2021, also expressly provided multiple times that, in allocating market share, it could consider “equity.” The EPA later issued a final rule in July of 2023 to cover allocation of hydrofluorocarbons from 2024 through 2028. That final rule continued to provide for allowances to “new market” entrants, prejudicing Choice Refrigerants and other businesses to the advantage of those deemed worthy by the Biden Administration. When Choice Refrigerants challenged the EPA’s scheme, the EPA initially defended its allocation of market-share by claiming it “was free to issue the allowances in a reasonable manner, reasonably explained,” based on Chevron deference. However, the Supreme Court would later overrule the Chevron doctrine — a doctrine which required courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute so long as it was reasonable. 

Source: SCOTUS Could Strike Down EPA’s Unconstitutional Overreach

Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you.
Jeremiah 29:12

Come As You Are: God Awaits You

God does not ask you to be flawless before coming to Him. He asks you to come as you are. “For by grace are ye saved through faith… not of works.” —…

Keep reading

Robin Williams as the American Flag

Robin Williams portrays the American flag in “I Love Liberty,” a two-hour television special created by Norman Lear and presented by People For the American Way. Source: (630) Robin Williams as the…

Keep reading

Red Skelton’s Pledge of Allegiance

When is the last time you heard the pledge of Allegiance recited like the great late Christian comedian red Skelton? Give it a listen ! Source: (630) Red Skelton’s Pledge of Allegiance…

Keep reading

The Story of America: John Adams

The White House Salute to America 250 Task Force has partnered with Hillsdale College to provide a history series that tells the remarkable story of American Independence. It will highlight the stories…

Keep reading

George Washington on Freedom of Speech

George Washington never wrote a single famous statement that exactly says “freedom of speech” in the way many internet memes claim. However, throughout his writings and public addresses, he strongly supported the…

Keep reading

Why Waiting on God is Always Worth It

What feels late to us is often perfectly timed by God. Heaven’s clock never runs behind schedule. “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise… but is longsuffering to us-ward.” — 2…

Keep reading

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Supreme Court unanimously slaps down blue state targeting pro-life group

Supreme Court of the United States building

The Supreme Court unanimously sided with a group of faith-based pregnancy centers on Wednesday that challenged the New Jersey attorney general’s investigation into whether the centers misled donors and the public about steering women away from having abortions. The case was brought by First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a group of five Christian-based facilities in New Jersey that provide various pre-natal services to women facing unplanned pregnancies. The Supreme Court found the state investigation violated the centers’ First Amendment rights, handing a victory to the pro-life movement, which had argued the probe rattled the centers’ donors. The opinion was narrow, finding that First Choice is now able to sue over the state investigation in federal court.

Source: Supreme Court unanimously slaps down blue state targeting pro-life group | Fox News

Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted.
Isaiah 53:4

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.

Justice Sotomayor apologizes to Justice Kavanaugh for public criticism of immigration opinion

The U.S. Supreme Court building and American flag under a dramatic sunset sky.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a rare public apology Wednesday over what she called “inappropriate” remarks aimed at Justice Brett Kavanaugh for his vote last year to allow aggressive Trump administration immigration enforcement tactics, which critics had called racial profiling. “I had a colleague in that case who wrote, you know, these are only ‘temporary stops,’” Sotomayor said at the University of Kansas School of Law last week, referring to Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in the case.

“This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.” While the Court’s majority did not formally explain its decision to lift a restraining order against the ICE strategy for targeting suspected unauthorized immigrants in California, Kavanaugh wrote separately to explain his view that “apparent ethnicity” could be a “relevant factor” in determining probable cause to detain a person. 

Source: Justice Sotomayor apologizes to Justice Kavanaugh for public criticism of immigration opinion – ABC News

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
Philippians 4:6-7

Alaska man, 77, Agrees to plead guilty to felony charge of threatening six Supreme Court justices

dumbbells in jail

A 77-year-old Alaska man has agreed to plead guilty to sending over 500 threatening messages to six U.S. Supreme Court justices and unlawfully possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, according to court filings. Panos Anastasiou faces a felony charge for making threats against the justices from 2023 to 2024, a filing submitted April 10 in U.S. District Court in Alaska shows. He will also plead guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm stemming from a 1991 conviction.

Under the plea agreement, federal prosecutors plan to recommend a sentence of probation and home confinement, citing Anastasiou’s advanced age, dementia, and a history of throat cancer. The case comes amid a broader surge in threats against federal judges. It follows the sentencing, just months ago, of a would-be assassin who was arrested with weapons near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home with weapons and received roughly eight years in prison. U.S. District Judge Aaron Christian Peterson is scheduled to hold a plea hearing for Anastasiou on Thursday.

According to a 2024 indictment, Anastasiou in the hundreds of message targeted two of the justices’ family members. The communications included violent, racist and homophobic rhetoric, along with explicit threats of assassination, torture and hanging, as well as references to firearm use. A draft of the plea agreement filed with the court quotes a July 2024 email in which Anastasiou allegedly called for the assassinations of Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and then-President Donald Trump. “Their assassination is ESSENTIAL for the country and democracy,” the message reportedly stated. “We should make the 6 corrupt [expletives] to be AFRAID very AFRAID to leave their home and fear for their lives everyday.”

Source: Alaska man, 77, Agrees to plead guilty to felony charge of threatening six Supreme Court justices | Just The News

Casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you.
1 Peter 5:7

California Fines Church $1.2 Million for Worship; Now the Supreme Court Must Decide if the Constitution Still Stands

exchange of indian currency outdoors scene

Advocates for Faith & Freedom, in partnership with the American Center for Law & Justice, has filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn more than $1.2 million in fines imposed on Calvary Chapel San Jose and Pastor Mike McClure for the simple act of gathering to worship. This case stands as one of the clearest examples of government overreach against a church in modern American history. During COVID, California forced churches to close, restrict worship, and enforce mandates that violated Calvary Chapel’s sincerely held beliefs. At the very same time, the state allowed widespread exemptions for secular operations such as restaurants, athletic programs, and government offices.

Calvary Chapel chose obedience to Scripture over obedience to shifting political orders. The county retaliated with rapidly escalating fines that soared to $5,000 per day, ultimately exceeding $1.2 million, along with coercive demands for sworn compliance with orders later deemed unconstitutional. In addition to the $1,228,700 judgment, Santa Clara County is seeking $1,098,244 in attorneys’ fees and $45,753 in costs, which remain stayed pending appeal. If imposed, the total financial burden on Calvary Chapel would exceed $2.37 million – a staggering sum designed to punish a church for worshipping God during a crisis. The petition emphasizes that the Supreme Court has already ruled in Tandon v. Newsom that government cannot treat religious gatherings worse than comparable secular activities. California ignored that mandate and continued to target churches. “Government officials may not weaponize emergencies to suspend the First Amendment,” said Erin Mersino, Vice President and Chief of Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation for Advocates for Faith & Freedom. “California imposed some of the most aggressive restrictions on churches in the country, and this case is about ensuring the government never does this again.”

Source: California Fines Church $1.2 Million for Worship; Now the Supreme Court Must Decide if the Constitution Still Stands – Christian Newswire

Yes, in the way of Your judgments, O LORD, we have waited for You; The desire of our soul is for Your name And for the remembrance of You.
Isaiah 26:8