Supreme Court expands presidential power in key Trump cases

The Supreme Court’s 2025–2026 term produced several rulings that strengthened the executive branch’s authority over immigration enforcement and agency oversight. In Mullin v. Doe, a 6-3 majority upheld the termination of temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian nationals, limiting judicial review of such decisions. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court allowed the president to remove heads of independent agencies at will, overturning a 91-year precedent. These outcomes reversed earlier losses from the first Trump term on similar issues.

Presidential power formed the term’s central tension. The Court rejected the administration’s tariff program in Learning Resources v. Trump on statutory grounds, with six justices including two Trump appointees holding that Congress had not delegated the authority. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing Congress could surrender tariff power without constitutional violation. In the TPS case, Thomas wrote separately that courts lack authority to examine presidential actions within his conclusive constitutional domain, a position the majority did not adopt.

Birthright citizenship challenges reached the Court in Trump v. Barbara. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a majority opinion interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause to require citizenship for those born on U.S. soil regardless of parents’ status. Dissenters argued procedural barriers should have prevented reaching the merits. The ruling preserved existing policy while inviting future statutory adjustments.

Additional decisions addressed removal power for most agencies while carving out an exception for the Federal Reserve, struck down certain gun restrictions under historical-tradition analysis, and limited nationwide injunctions from district courts. These holdings collectively shifted authority toward the executive and away from independent agencies and lower-court judges. Unverified claims in some coverage, such as specific procedural objections attributed to dissents in the citizenship case, could not be corroborated by other reporting.