Three Stinging Defeats for Trump Close Out the Supreme Court Term

Introduction: a term that ends badly for the White House

Three rulings, one shared message

On June 29 and 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court wrapped up its annual term with a series of rulings that, despite a conservative 6-3 majority, dealt several significant setbacks to Donald Trump. The most dramatic: striking down his executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, in Trump v. Barbara ([SCOTUSblog](https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-order-ending-birthright-citizenship/)). The same day, the Court also declined to hear Trump's appeal in the E. Jean Carroll case, leaving intact a civil verdict finding that he sexually assaulted and defamed her.

But the Court did not hand down only defeats: in Trump v. Slaughter, it considerably expanded the president's power to remove heads of independent federal agencies, overturning a 90-year-old precedent. It is this combination of wins and losses that makes this term particularly revealing of today's constitutional tensions.

Why this essay is needed now

Understanding these three decisions together, rather than in isolation, reveals a broader phenomenon: a conservative-majority Supreme Court that does not hesitate to rein in certain presidential ambitions when they run headlong into constitutional text, while simultaneously expanding executive power on other fronts. This is neither a Court fully captured by Trump, nor systematic opposition: it is a Court drawing its own lines, sometimes in surprising ways.

Trump v. Barbara: the failed attack on birthright citizenship

An order deemed unconstitutional from the moment it was signed

Presidential executive order 14160, signed on January 20, 2025, sought to deny automatic citizenship to children born on American soil to parents present illegally or temporarily in the country. Writing the majority opinion for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled bluntly: "Under the Constitution, they are citizens at birth," relying on the historic 1898 precedent, United States v. Wong Kim Ark ([SCOTUSblog](https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-order-ending-birthright-citizenship/)).

The ruling, decided 6 votes to 3, brought together an unusual coalition: Roberts was joined not only by the three liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, but also by Trump's own appointees, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — though the latter based his concurrence on strictly statutory rather than constitutional grounds.

A dissent that fails to sway the majority

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, with Alito calling the ruling "one of the most important decisions in the Court's history" while also branding it "a grave error." According to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted between June 18 and 22, 2026, roughly 70% of Americans wanted the Court to preserve the status quo on birthright citizenship, a public-opinion backdrop that likely weighed, at least symbolically, on the final decision.

The political and legal price of this defeat

A constitutional battle definitively closed

Unlike other cases where the Court avoids core constitutional questions, here it chose to settle the debate directly: Congress cannot, through simple legislation, redefine the scope of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause. As a New York Post analysis notes, this ruling "didn't end the birthright citizenship battle, it just made it tougher" politically for the administration, since the legislative workaround is now closed off ([New York Post](https://nypost.com/2026/06/30/opinion/supreme-court-didnt-end-the-birthright-citizen-battle-it-just-made-it-tougher/)).

Trump responded by saying he wants Congress to legislate on the issue, but legal analysts point out that this option is now constitutionally closed following this landmark ruling.

A victory for civil rights defenders

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the plaintiffs in this case, hailed the ruling as a decisive victory: "President Trump tried to rewrite the Constitution by executive order — and we stopped him" ([ACLU](https://www.aclu.org/cases/barbara-v-donald-j-trump)). This victory fits into a historical continuity: the 14th Amendment was adopted precisely to correct the injustice of the Dred Scott ruling, which excluded people born into slavery from American citizenship.

The Carroll case, a verdict that holds

Seven years of legal battle come to a close

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear Trump's appeal in the case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. This denial leaves intact a civil jury verdict that unanimously found Trump sexually assaulted and defamed her in the dressing room of a major New York department store nearly thirty years ago ([BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8q2z5wpn2o)). Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said this ruling "confirms once and for all the jury's unanimous verdict."

This decision specifically concerns the initial $5 million verdict; a separate, larger verdict of $83.3 million is following its own legal track and has not yet been definitively settled by the Supreme Court.

What this decision doesn't change, and what it confirms

As several legal analyses point out, the Court's refusal to hear the appeal carries no formal precedential value for future similar cases, but it does bring this specific proceeding to a definitive end. Trump will now have to legally satisfy the damages awarded by the jury, with no further legal recourse available on this specific part of the case.

Trump v. Slaughter, the presidential win over independent agencies

A 90-year-old precedent swept away

In a separate ruling handed down on June 29, the Court held, 6 votes to 3, that Trump had the power to remove Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, thereby overturning the historic precedent Humphrey's Executor v. United States, in effect since 1935 ([CNBC](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/29/supreme-court-trump-slaughter-ftc.html)). This ruling considerably expands presidential authority over roughly two dozen multi-member agencies that Congress had intended to keep independent from the executive branch.

According to analysis from several law firms, this ruling directly affects other major federal agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, whose commissioners can now be dismissed without having to show cause ([National Law Review](https://natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-rules-independent-agency-commissioners-can-be-terminated-president)).

A legitimate concern over regulatory independence

This ruling raises a fundamental question: what becomes of federal regulatory independence, meant to shield technical and economic decisions from direct political pressure, when a president can dismiss the heads of these agencies at will? That is precisely the logic the 1935 precedent sought to preserve, and one the Court has now abandoned.

What these three rulings reveal about the Roberts Court

A Court that rejects binary readings

The term that just concluded illustrates a reality that the most polarized commentary in public debate often ignores: today's Supreme Court is neither a simple executive arm of the White House, nor a systematic opposition. On birthright citizenship, it drew a clear constitutional line against Trump. On agency removal power, it markedly expanded his authority. This asymmetry deserves to be understood without giving in to the temptation of a simplistic narrative.

Justice Kavanaugh, in particular, illustrates this complexity: he voted against the citizenship executive order while refusing to endorse the majority's broad constitutional reasoning, preferring a narrower statutory basis. This kind of judicial nuance often escapes the fastest-turnaround news analysis.

A warning for the next legal battles

This term sends a clear message to the Trump administration: certain fundamental constitutional lines, like birthright citizenship, will not be crossed even by a conservative-majority Court. But on questions of administrative structure and executive power, that same Court proves markedly more permissive, a signal the administration could seek to exploit further in the months ahead.

The political reaction in Washington

Democrats hail a constitutional victory

Several Democratic lawmakers reacted with relief to the Trump v. Barbara ruling. Representative Jennifer McClellan said the Supreme Court had "rejected the Trump administration's attempt to rewrite the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship guarantee through executive order," recalling that this amendment was adopted to correct the injustice of Dred Scott v. Sandford.

On the Republican side, reactions remained more measured, with some lawmakers quietly acknowledging the legal soundness of the ruling while still voicing support for a future legislative fix, even as legal analysts now doubt its constitutional viability after this decision.

What this means for affected families

Welcome legal clarity for millions of people

For immigrant families with precarious status, this ruling provides essential legal clarity. As immigration attorney Chris Ingram explains, a child born on American soil remains an American citizen regardless of their parents' immigration status, whether on a temporary visa or without legal status. An American birth certificate remains sufficient proof of citizenship, exactly as it was before the contested executive order was signed.

This clarity ends months of anxious uncertainty for many families who feared, wrongly according to the final ruling, that their children's status as U.S.-born citizens could be retroactively called into question.

Conclusion: a mixed record that will shape the coming year

What Trump takes away from this term

For the Trump administration, this term ends with a clearly mixed record: a major constitutional defeat on birthright citizenship, a definitive legal defeat in the Carroll case, but a significant structural victory over the removal power for independent federal agencies. This is neither the total triumph some supporters hoped for, nor the complete rout some opponents would have wanted.

What to watch in the coming months

The true significance of these rulings will be measured in the months ahead: how the administration uses its new removal power over federal agencies, and how the political debate over citizenship continues now that the constitutional path is officially closed. These two seemingly distinct dynamics will together shape the balance of American power for years to come.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my acknowledged biases

I am a columnist, not a constitutional lawyer. I approach this story with an openly held conviction: protecting the American Constitution against attempts to bypass it through executive order strikes me as essential, regardless of who holds the presidency. I document the excesses I see in the Trump administration on domestic matters, while acknowledging the legitimacy of certain legal rulings that expand executive power when they are properly grounded in law.

What I don't know, and my method

I cannot predict how the Trump administration will actually use its new removal power over federal agencies in the months ahead. My method consists of cross-referencing official, publicly available Supreme Court rulings with independent legal analysis, in order to present as balanced a picture as possible without hiding my own convictions about the importance of the rule of law.

Sources

Primary sources

SCOTUSblog — Supreme Court strikes down Trump's order ending birthright citizenship — June 30, 2026

United States Supreme Court — Official opinion in Trump v. Barbara — June 30, 2026

BBC — Trump's final appeal in the E. Jean Carroll case is rejected — June 29, 2026

Secondary sources

CNBC — Supreme Court allows Trump to remove independent agency heads — June 29, 2026

National Law Review — Supreme Court rules independent agency commissioners can be terminated by the president — July 4, 2026

New York Post — Supreme Court didn't end the birthright citizenship battle, it just made it tougher — June 30, 2026

American Civil Liberties Union — Case summary of Barbara v. Donald J. Trump

Wikipedia — Trump v. Barbara, ruling and legal context