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

When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; And through the rivers, they shall not overflow you. When you walk through the fire, you shall not be burned, Nor shall the flame scorch you.
Isaiah 43:2

The Weight of Leadership

“A church can survive criticism, but it cannot thrive without integrity. When spiritual leaders forget they answer first to God, the flock always bears the…

Keep reading

Heaven is for Real Movie

“Heaven is for Real” is a faith-based family drama inspired by a Nebraska Pastor Tood Burpo’s best-selling book about his 4 years old son (Colton…

Keep reading

God’s Here

After losing his wife and son in a tragic accident, a firefighter wrestles with grief and forgiveness. Starring Kevin Sorbo (God’s Not Dead), Sarah Elizabeth…

Keep reading

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

Virginia Supreme Court tosses out congressional map that favored Democrats

aerial view of virginia state capitol in richmond

The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday tossed out a congressional redistricting referendum passed by Virginia voters last month, striking a blow to Democrats hoping to gain a more favorable map and increase their number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.  The decision overturns voters’ approval of a new congressional map that would have given Democrats an advantage in 10 House districts, leaving just one safe Republican seat. Although both of Virginia’s U.S. senators are Democrats, its House delegation is split with six Democratic representatives and five Republicans.  “We hold that the legislative process employed to advance this proposal violated Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia,” the opinion says. The court found that the commonwealth had “submitted a proposed constitutional amendment to Virginia voters in an unprecedented manner that violated the intervening-election requirement.”  “This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void,” the court ruled. Under Virginia law, before a constitutional amendment can be put before the voters, it must be approved by the General Assembly twice, with an election for the House of Delegates between the two votes. In this case, the court noted, voting in the general election for the House of Delegates began on Sept. 19, 2025, and ended on Election Day, on Nov. 4, 2025. The General Assembly’s vote on proposing the redistricting amendment to Virginia voters took place on Oct. 31, and by then, about 40% — or more than 1.3 million Virginians — had already cast their ballots. The court determined that the redistricting amendment process in this case deprived those 1.3 million voters of their constitutionally protected “opportunity to elect the House of Delegates that will participate in the second legislative vote on the proposed amendment.” 

Source: Virginia Supreme Court tosses out congressional map that favored Democrats – CBS News

And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming.
1 John 2:28

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

This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’
Acts 4:11

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

Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for Him; Do not fret because of him who prospers in his way, Because of the man who brings wicked schemes to pass.
Psalm 37:7

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

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the hearts.
Proverbs 21:2

The Story of a Japanese Wallet; Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Japan wallet analogy draws conservative backlash

Open brown leather wallet showing card slots and stamped with HANDMADE IN ITALY.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson faced viral backlash from conservatives over a comment during oral arguments about birthright citizenship where she floated an analogy comparing the issue to stealing a wallet in Japan.  “I was thinking, you know, I’m a U.S. citizen and visiting Japan and what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me,” Jackson said during Wednesday’s oral arguments centered on President Trump’s 2025 executive order advancing a narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.

“It’s allegiance, meaning, they can control you as a matter of law. I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there’s this relationship based on, even though I’m a temporary traveler, I’m just on vacation in Japan, I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense. Is that the right way to think about it? And if so, doesn’t that explain why both temporary residents and undocumented people would have that kind of, quote-unquote, allegiance, just by virtue of being in the United States?”

Source: Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Japan wallet analogy draws conservative backlash | Fox News

Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties; And see if there is any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting.
Psalm 139:23-24

Supreme Court to hear arguments over Trump’s birthright citizenship order today

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

Washington — The Supreme Court will convene for arguments Wednesday to consider the legality of President Trump’s executive order that seeks to end birthright citizenship. The question in the case, known as Trump v. Barbara, is whether the president’s directive complies with the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and federal immigration law enacted in 1952. Mr. Trump issued the executive order on the first day of his second term as part of his plans for a sweeping immigration crackdown, but it has not taken effect because of decisions from lower courts finding it is likely unlawful. The White House’s official schedule for Wednesday says Mr. Trump will personally attend the arguments, which, if he follows through, would make him the first sitting president on record to do so.

The president previously said he wanted to attend the oral arguments when the Supreme Court was considering a challenge to his sweeping tariffs in November, but later backed down, writing, “I do not want to distract from the importance of this Decision.” In the lead-up to arguments, Mr. Trump has taken to social media to defend his plan and attacked the courts as “stupid.” In a post to Truth Social in late February, the president claimed the Supreme Court “will find a way to come to the wrong conclusion” in the case.

Source: Supreme Court to hear arguments over Trump’s birthright citizenship order today – CBS News

Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
1 John 4:11

No Kings protests returns

domestic sheep walking in enclosure in summer ranch

“No Kings” protests returning to cites around the US.

He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, And he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city.
Proverbs 16:32

Supreme Court Seems Open To Taking Away Key Election Rule Beloved By Dems

paper with the words postal vote in a typewriter

The Supreme Court seemed open Monday to cracking down on states’ ability to accept mail-in ballots that arrive late. Several justices seemed concerned about the “slippery slope” of counting ballots received after Election Day, raising questions about who can receive ballots and how to address perceptions of fraud. “When do I know whether or not a choice is final?” Justice Clarence Thomas asked Missouri Solicitor General Scott Stewart.

Source: Supreme Court Seems Open To Taking Away Key Election Rule Beloved By Dems | CDN

Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable.
Isaiah 40:28

States That Allow Bible in the Classroom

Texas public schools will now require students to read Bible passages and stories as part of the latest conservative push to expand the role of religion in public education—a move bound to escalate wrangling…

Supreme Court weighs whether to allow grace periods for mail ballots

a peron filling up a voting ballot

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over a Mississippi law that allows counting late-arriving mail ballots after Election Day.

Source: Supreme Court weighs whether to allow grace periods for mail ballots | AP News

That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death.
Philippians 3:10

Politics; What Should we do?

Bible Politics 2

Dear Heavenly Father, place your hand on all of the upcoming elections and the process of the political elections. Help them to look to you for guidance and supervision. In Jesus Name Amen.