4 takeaways from the Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 term

Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 Term Features Expanded Presidential Authority Over Agencies Alongside Losses on Tariffs and Citizenship

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 term addressed multiple questions involving presidential authority over federal agencies, immigration enforcement, and other statutory and constitutional issues. The Court overturned a New Deal-era limit on removal of certain agency heads, upheld executive actions on border policy in two cases, and ruled against the administration in disputes over tariffs and birthright citizenship.

The term produced several decisions that narrowed interpretations of the Voting Rights Act, expanded Second Amendment protections in one case, and upheld state restrictions on transgender participation in female sports categories. Outcomes on voting procedures and Federal Reserve governance diverged from administration positions. Analysis of the term requires attention to the Court’s composition and the specific holdings.

Executive Authority Over Independent Agencies Expanded

In *Trump v. Slaughter*, the Court held that the president may remove commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission for any reason, eliminating prior statutory protections that had required cause. The decision applies to other agencies previously classified as independent. Every subsequent president may now exercise removal authority over heads of such agencies and appoint replacements.

A similar principle was applied in 2020 in *Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau*, which permitted at-will removal of the CFPB director. In 2021, President Biden used that authority to replace the prior director. The *Slaughter* ruling extends the same removal power across additional agencies.

Supporters of the change have argued that it increases accountability by aligning agency leadership with elected officials rather than insulating officials from political oversight. Critics have raised concerns about concentration of authority. The Federal Reserve was excluded from the new removal standard in a separate ruling.

Court Issued Conservative-Leaning Rulings While Rejecting Administration Positions in High-Profile Cases

The Court narrowed the Voting Rights Act in *Louisiana v. Callais*, expanded the scope of the Second Amendment in *Wolford v. Lopez*, upheld executive immigration measures in *Mullin v. Doe* and *Mullin v. Al Otro Lado*, and sustained state laws restricting transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports in *West Virginia v. B.P.J.*. These outcomes aligned with positions advanced by conservative litigants and organizations.

In *Learning Resources v. Trump*, the Court ruled 6–3 against the administration’s tariff policy, with two justices appointed by President Trump joining the majority. In *Trump v. Barbara*, the Court rejected the administration’s position on birthright citizenship. The president attended oral arguments in that case. Subsequent statements from the administration indicated continued policy disagreement, though the constitutional holding stands.

In *Watson v. Republican National Committee*, the Court upheld a state mail-in ballot counting rule that included ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion sustaining the procedure.

In *Trump v. Cook*, the Court ruled against the president’s attempt to remove a Federal Reserve Board member. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that for-cause protections for the position could not be converted into at-will employment without undermining statutory design.

These results illustrate that alignment between the Court’s majority and specific administration priorities was not uniform across all cases.

Justices Diverged on Application of Nondelegation Principles

In *Biden v. Nebraska* (2023), Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh joined an opinion finding that the administration had exceeded delegated authority on student-loan matters. In the tariffs case, the same three justices dissented from the majority’s conclusion that the administration had exceeded delegated tariff authority. Justice Gorsuch wrote separately to note the differing approaches to delegation questions across administrations.

Civil Liberties Outcomes Varied Across Cases

In *Chatrie v. United States*, the Court held that geofence warrants seeking cell-phone location data constitute searches under the Fourth Amendment and are subject to the warrant requirement.

In *United States v. Hemani*, the Court ruled that prosecuting a marijuana user for firearm possession violated the Second Amendment.

In *Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections*, the Court limited the remedies available to prisoners alleging religious-liberty violations by prison officials, continuing a line of decisions that have narrowed individual damages actions against government officers.

Questions on Administrative Structure and Future Litigation

The *Slaughter* decision places most independent agencies under direct presidential removal authority while leaving the Federal Reserve’s structure intact. Agencies continue to exercise both enforcement and rulemaking functions previously delegated by statute.

Justice Gorsuch wrote separately in *Slaughter* to note questions about whether Congress would have delegated combined legislative and executive functions to agencies if removal protections were absent, and how Congress or the Court might address resulting structural issues. Any statutory revision restoring limits on removal would require presidential signature.

Litigation over the scope of agency authority and the boundaries of presidential control is expected to continue in subsequent terms. The Court’s treatment of delegation and removal questions will determine the extent of further adjustments to the administrative framework.