# The Day the Supreme Court Handed Trump the Keys to the Federal Agencies > On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down one of those rulings that never quite make the - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Reportage - Published: 2026-07-05 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/le-jour-ou-la-cour-supreme-a-offert-a-trump-les-cles-des-agences-federales ## Introduction: a Friday that changed Washington ### A ruling that landed without warning On **June 29, 2026**, the **Supreme Court of the United States** handed down one of those rulings that never quite make the evening news, yet quietly redraw the architecture of American power. By a vote of **six to three**, the **justices** upheld **Donald Trump**'s removal of the Democratic **commissioner** of the **Federal Trade Commission** (**FTC**), **Rebecca Kelly Slaughter**, in the case now known as **Trump v. Slaughter** (**Supreme Court, docket 25-332**). I remember reading the Court's release and thinking that this seemingly technical case would end up touching something far bigger: the ability of an American president to control, by sheer will, institutions that were supposed to operate beyond his direct reach. This is not a footnote in administrative procedure. It is a hinge point. ### A woman, a letter, a dismissal **Rebecca Slaughter**, a **commissioner** at the **FTC** for several years, was removed from office by **Trump** in **March 2025**, with no specific cause given, alongside her colleague **Alvaro Bedoya**, who has since resigned and dropped his own legal challenge. **Slaughter**, for her part, chose to fight it out in court, all the way to this **ruling** from the nation's highest tribunal. *I will say this up front: this case unsettles me, and I am not going to pretend otherwise just to sound neutral. Watching a democratically elected president secure judicial blessing to remove regulators tasked with protecting consumers from market abuses, on a whim, looks like exactly the kind of drift we should be watching closely, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.* ## The majority's reasoning ### Roberts and the unitary executive doctrine Chief Justice **John Roberts**, who authored the majority **opinion**, wrote a line that captures the spirit of the **ruling**: **"The FTC unquestionably exercises executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive."** In other words, once an agency exercises power of an executive nature, it must remain under the president's direct authority, who may remove its leaders at will (**Supreme Court opinion**, **June 29, 2026**). This logic rests on what legal scholars call the **unitary executive theory**, a conservative legal doctrine that has been gaining ground for years in federalist circles. Justice **Neil Gorsuch**, in a concurring **opinion**, was even blunter: **"Independent agencies are not so independent after all,"** he wrote, effectively declaring that the **independence** of these institutions had never been anything but a tolerated legal fiction. ### Ninety-one years of precedent swept away What makes this **ruling** historic is that it explicitly overturns **Humphrey's Executor v. United States**, a **91-year-old** ruling from **1935** that had protected **commissioners** of independent agencies from arbitrary presidential dismissal. That **precedent** had survived dozens of administrations, Republican and Democratic alike. It no longer exists. *When a precedent holds for ninety-one years, that is not a legal accident. It is a collective choice made across several generations of judges who believed that a minimum of distance between the White House and certain regulators served the public interest. Sweeping it away in a single ruling deserves more than an editorial shrug.* ## The dissent, a solemn warning ### Sotomayor and the list of agencies now at risk Justice **Sonia Sotomayor**, who wrote the dissent joined by **Elena Kagan** and **Ketanji Brown Jackson**, drew up a precise list of institutions whose statutory protections now hang in the balance: the **National Labor Relations Board**, the **Federal Energy Regulatory Commission**, the **Consumer Product Safety Commission**, the **Chemical Safety Board**, the **Nuclear Regulatory Commission**, and the **Merit Systems Protection Board** (**dissenting opinion, Supreme Court**, **June 29, 2026**). That enumeration is not an academic exercise. Each of these agencies exists precisely because **Congress**, at some point in its history, decided it was necessary to shield it from the direct political pressures of the presidency. Seeing them listed as potential dominoes gives a sense of just how far-reaching this shift really is. ### Power transferred, not merely delegated **Rebecca Slaughter** herself did not mince words after the **ruling**. She called the **decision** a **"massive transfer of power from Congress to the President,"** a statement she made publicly on **Bloomberg** shortly after the judgment was released. In her view, the ruling opens the door for presidents to **"dismiss those watchdogs who prioritize principles over political agendas and replace them with compliant figures."** *I believe Slaughter is right on this specific point, regardless of my opinion on her politics otherwise. A regulator who knows they can be fired overnight, without cause, for making a decision that displeases whoever holds power, is no longer really an independent regulator. They become an operative under permanent surveillance.* ## The twin case of the Federal Reserve ### Trump v. Cook, the exception that proves the rule That same day, the Court handed down a second **ruling**, **Trump v. Cook**, this time by **five votes to four**, in favor of Federal Reserve Governor **Lisa Cook**. Surprisingly, it was again Chief Justice **Roberts** who wrote this **opinion**, carving out a specific exception for the **Fed**, judged to be unique enough in its monetary function to merit distinct protection against arbitrary presidential removals (**NBC News, June 29, 2026**). That distinction is not trivial. It signals that even a conservative majority on the Court recognizes that a central bank fully subject to a president's electoral whims would pose too great a systemic risk to the American economy, and by extension the global one. ### A two-tier architecture What is emerging is an implicit hierarchy among **federal agencies**: some, like the **Fed**, enjoy reinforced protection because of their perceived unique role; others, like the **FTC**, become direct extensions of presidential will. This distinction, drawn by a divided Court, leaves a wide field of uncertainty for every agency that does not clearly fit into either category. *I find this two-tier architecture oddly arbitrary. Why should monetary stability deserve stronger constitutional protection than shielding consumers from fraudulent business practices? The legal logic invoked here seems driven mainly by fear of rattling financial markets, not by any coherent governing principle.* ## A year of purges in context ### A reprieve granted back in September 2025 This outcome did not come out of nowhere. As early as **September 22, 2025**, the **Supreme Court** had granted the **Trump** administration a stay allowing the immediate removal of **Slaughter** while the legal proceedings continued. That interim **ruling** already hinted at the direction the final **decision** would take nine months later. In the meantime, the **FTC** continued to operate with a reshuffled composition, under **commissioners** considered more aligned with **White House** priorities, a situation that inevitably shaped the cases the agency handled during that transitional period. ### An administration that keeps testing constitutional limits This case fits into a broader strategy by the **Trump** administration, which has multiplied legal challenges aimed at expanding presidential authority over the federal apparatus. Each victory before the **Supreme Court**, like the one on June 29, serves as a **precedent** for the next, in a cumulative dynamic that worries defenders of the **separation of powers**. *It is never a single ruling that dismantles an institutional balance, it is an accumulation. And that is precisely what concerns me here: each individual victory can look defensible in isolation, but the sum of them adds up to a presidency increasingly close to a power without internal counterweight.* ## What this actually means for consumers ### The FTC, historic guardian of competition The **Federal Trade Commission** has existed since **1914** specifically to police unfair business practices and protect **competition** in the American marketplace. Its relative **independence** from the **executive branch** has long been presented as a guarantee that its investigations into major corporations, some close to whoever holds power, would remain impartial. With this **ruling**, the fear voiced by several legal scholars and **consumer** advocacy groups is that the **FTC** becomes a political instrument, capable of sparing companies allied with the **White House** while pursuing those deemed hostile more aggressively. ### A signal sent to markets and corporations Major technology and pharmaceutical companies, regularly in the **FTC**'s crosshairs over **competition** issues, are watching this **ruling** with particular interest. A **regulator** whose leadership can shift with a president's mood becomes, in effect, more predictable for some economic actors, and less predictable for others. *I cannot help but think of the corporations that will now know a well-placed phone call to the White House could influence the makeup of their regulator. This is not conspiracy theorizing, it is simply the logical, foreseeable consequence of what this ruling now permits.* ## The Democratic camp reacts ### Unanimous condemnation among lawmakers Several Democratic members of **Congress** denounced the **ruling** as a frontal assault on the balance of powers designed by the framers of the American **Constitution**. The reasoning is simple: if Congress creates an agency with specific statutory protections for its leaders, it is precisely to shield it from the direct, shifting influence of the executive branch. This dynamic feeds a broader debate over whether **Congress** can continue shaping the federal administrative architecture at all, if its legislative choices can be so easily undone by a **Supreme Court** favorable to a maximalist reading of **presidential power**. ### Fears for future administrations An argument that keeps resurfacing in legal analyses published since the **ruling**: this **decision** will not benefit **Trump** alone. It will apply to every future president, Democrat or Republican, who will now be able to reshape the composition of numerous **federal agencies** at will, from the moment they take office. *This might be the most underrated angle of this whole case: the ruling is not tailor-made for one man. It becomes a tool available to whoever occupies the White House next, which should worry Trump's supporters just as much as his opponents, the moment they picture a president they despise wielding these exact same powers.* ## The White House's relative silence ### A victory savored without public triumphalism Unlike other legal victories widely celebrated on social media by the administration, the official reaction to the **Trump v. Slaughter** **ruling** remained relatively measured in its immediate public messaging. That restraint may reflect a wish not to further fuel the debate over the scope of **presidential power** now validated. Behind the scenes, **White House** legal advisers quickly pointed out that this **ruling** confirms a vision of **executive power** championed for decades by conservative legal scholars, particularly those trained in the **Federalist Society** orbit. ### A long-term ideological victory For the legal architects behind this strategy, the **June 29** **ruling** represents the culmination of a decades-long intellectual project aimed at strengthening the unitary executive theory. This is no calendar coincidence: it is the realization of a doctrine patiently built, case after case, until it reached the nation's highest court. *We often underestimate the patience of the American conservative legal movement. This is not an improvised power grab, it is the culmination of groundwork laid since the Reagan years. Whether or not one agrees with the outcome, the strategic coherence of this long game deserves recognition.* ## A precedent that crosses American borders ### The West is watching America's balance of power Western allies of the United States are following the evolution of America's institutional balance closely, because the perceived stability of the constitutional checks-and-balances system directly influences the confidence placed in international commitments made by **Washington**, particularly on trade and transatlantic economic regulation. A presidency with expanded powers over its own regulatory agencies could, over time, alter how predictable American trade and economic policy appears to its partners, a factor European and Canadian foreign ministries are already factoring into their analyses. ### A lesson for democracies like ours This case also illustrates a broader truth: even the oldest, most institutionally solid democracies, like the United States, are never fully immune to a gradual erosion of their checks-and-balances mechanisms. It is a useful reminder for other Western democracies that might believe their own institutions are immune to this kind of dynamic. *I genuinely believe this case deserves close attention from everyone in the West who cares about the solidity of their own democratic institutions. What happens in Washington is never entirely isolated from the rest of the Western world, if only because other leaders elsewhere are watching closely what becomes legally possible.* ## The limits of what we still know ### Questions the ruling leaves open The **Trump v. Slaughter** **ruling**, for all its scope, does not answer every question. It remains uncertain, for instance, how lower courts will handle future challenges involving agencies not explicitly named by the Court, or whether **Congress** will attempt to legislate new ways of restoring some of these protections. It would be premature to claim that every independent agency will immediately lose its functional autonomy. The real test will come from the next cases, the ones that will determine how far this new doctrine actually extends. ### Necessary caution amid legal uncertainty I do not claim to be a constitutional scholar, and I will remain cautious about long-term projections this **ruling** might invite. What I can say with certainty is that the text of the **ruling** itself, publicly available, fundamentally changes the legal relationship between the president and a broad category of **federal agencies**. *I own the fact that I do not know every legal ramification this ruling will trigger in the months ahead. What I do know is that a ninety-one-year-old precedent never falls without cascading consequences, and I would rather admit that honestly than pretend to predict every future development.* ## The symbolic weight of a late-June Friday ### Two rulings, one day, a single message The choice to publish both rulings, **Trump v. Slaughter** and Trump v. Cook, on the same day was probably no accident. Together, they send a coherent message: the **Supreme Court**, in its current composition, is ready to substantially redraw the contours of **executive power** in America, while maintaining one specific red line around monetary policy. This double **ruling** will likely be studied for years in American law schools as a hinge moment in constitutional theory around **executive power**, alongside other foundational rulings of the past century. ### A story still being written **Rebecca Slaughter**, for her part, has said she will keep speaking publicly about the consequences of this **ruling** for American economic regulation, even without an official seat at the **FTC**. Her voice, in the months ahead, will be watched as one of the rare people directly affected by this institutional paradigm shift. *I find it remarkable that someone pushed out by this ruling would choose to keep fighting in the public square rather than simply fading into the private sector. That, on a smaller scale, may be where another form of democratic resistance to institutional erosion is playing out.* ## What legal historians will say later ### A moment comparable to other historic turning points The great rulings of the American **Supreme Court** are often judged, with hindsight, by their influence on decades of future case law. **Trump v. Slaughter** falls into that category of decisions whose true scope will only be fully measured in ten or twenty years, once several successive administrations have tested the limits of this new doctrine. It is also likely that this **ruling** will become a cited reference in future academic debates on the **separation of powers**, alongside other major decisions that redefined relations between branches of the American government. ### An invitation to civic vigilance This case is, once again, a reminder that the robustness of a **democracy** does not depend solely on its founding texts, but also on the constant vigilance of its citizens toward the evolving judicial interpretation of those texts, a vigilance that should never depend on the party affiliation of whoever holds power at a given moment. *I believe the real question, beyond Trump himself, is this: are we collectively ready to accept these same powers in the hands of a leader we despise? If the honest answer is no, then the problem is not merely partisan, it is structural.* ## Consequences for future federal commissioners ### A new precariousness for regulators Future **commissioners** appointed to lead agencies like the **FTC** will now have to reckon with a new reality: their tenure will depend directly on **presidential** satisfaction with their decisions, rather than on the **statutory** term set by **Congress**. This **precariousness** could shape the very nature of decisions made by these **regulators**, out of fear of political retaliation. Some observers worry about a **chilling effect** on future candidacies for these posts, with the most independent-minded people potentially hesitant to accept a role whose stability depends entirely on **presidential goodwill**. ### A cultural shift as much as a legal one Beyond the legal text itself, this **ruling** could gradually transform the **institutional culture** of these agencies, where **political caution** could, over time, override the **independent judgment** that has long defined how they operate. *This may be the most insidious effect of this ruling: there is no need to actually fire every uncooperative commissioner, the mere possibility of doing so is enough to reshape behavior in advance. It is a form of power that does not even need to be exercised to produce its effects.* ## Shockwaves through the business world ### Law firms revise their advice Inside major **administrative law** firms in **Washington**, this **ruling** immediately triggered a wave of internal memos aimed at corporate clients. **Competition law** attorneys are now advising their clients to prepare for an **FTC** whose political orientation could shift faster than before, following the priorities of whichever **White House** is in office. This perceived instability complicates long-term planning for large companies under **FTC** oversight, particularly in the **technology**, **pharmaceutical**, and **mergers-and-acquisitions** sectors, where regulatory predictability has always mattered as much as regulation itself. ### A risk of heightened politicization in investigations **Consumer** advocacy groups, for their part, fear that some ongoing investigations into major corporations could be quietly dropped or, conversely, intensified based on political rather than strictly legal considerations. That fear, if confirmed in the months ahead, could further erode public trust in the **FTC**'s impartiality. *I will keep watching this economic dimension of the story, often overshadowed by the purely constitutional debate. Competition regulation perceived as politicized always ends up hurting honest companies and consumers alike, because no one really knows anymore which rules of the game to trust.* ## Conclusion: an American lesson for the whole West ### What history will remember about this Friday, June 29 The **Trump v. Slaughter** **ruling** will be remembered as the moment the American **Supreme Court** formally ended nearly a century of institutional protection for independent **federal agencies**. **Rebecca Slaughter**, a mere **commissioner** fired without cause in 2025, has become, against her will, the symbol of a constitutional shift far bigger than her own career. This case shows, once again, that the most decisive battles for democracy's future are not always fought at the ballot box or in grand presidential speeches, but sometimes in hushed courtrooms, over cases whose real scope escapes public attention until the consequences become visible, years later. ### A vigilance that must never fade I close this narrative without any definitive certainty about how this **ruling** will concretely reshape the American administrative landscape in the years ahead. What I do know is that it deserves to be followed with the same rigor, regardless of who occupies the **White House** at the next election. *If I had to sum up this case in one sentence, it would be this: power that no longer meets institutional counterweight will always, sooner or later, test its own limits. That was true for Trump, it will be true for his successor, and that is exactly why this case deserves our sustained attention rather than a partisan shrug.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - U.S. Supreme Court, official opinion Trump v. Slaughter — June 29, 2026 - The New York Times, analysis of the ruling and Rebecca Slaughter's reaction — June 29, 2026 ### Secondary sources - CNBC, Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner — June 29, 2026 - The Guardian, Supreme Court overturns 91-year-old precedent — June 29, 2026 - SCOTUSblog, detailed legal analysis of the ruling — June 29, 2026 - NBC News, the twin ruling on Fed Governor Lisa Cook — June 29, 2026 --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/le-jour-ou-la-cour-supreme-a-offert-a-trump-les-cles-des-agences-federales