# Three Stinging Defeats for Trump Close Out the Supreme Court Term

> On June 29 and 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court wrapped up its annual term with a series of rulings that,

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Essay
- Published: 2026-07-06
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/trois-defaites-cinglantes-pour-trump-cloturent-le-mandat-de-la-cour-supreme

## 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.

*Like many observers, I expected a Supreme Court more predictably aligned with the Trump administration. This term shows that institutional reality remains more nuanced than the partisan caricatures drawn on both ends of the political spectrum.*

## 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.

*I see this ruling as one of the most important of the Trump presidency, not just for its legal substance but for what it reveals: even a Supreme Court largely shaped by conservative appointments refuses to validate a unilateral rewrite of constitutional text through executive order.*

## 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.

*I find it deeply symbolic that this ruling rests on an amendment born directly out of the fight against slavery. Using that same text to protect immigrants' children today shows a historical continuity of the equality principle that deserves to be underscored relentlessly.*

## 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.

*I refuse to downplay this ruling just because it merely confirms a verdict already handed down. The fact that a sitting president exhausted every legal remedy up to the Supreme Court, without success, in a sexual assault case, deserves to be named clearly, without evasion or protective euphemism.*

## 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.

*I consider this the most troubling of the three rulings, despite receiving less media coverage than the citizenship case. Concentrating this much removal power in the hands of one man, over agencies meant to settle technical questions far from partisan politics, weakens an institutional check that had proven itself for nearly a century.*

## 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.

*I choose to see in this term a reassuring, if fragile, sign: the Constitution still retains the power to resist the most blatant attempts to bypass it through executive order. But I remain clear-eyed that the expansion of presidential removal power opens a door whose long-term consequences are still hard to fully measure today.*

## 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.

*I note with interest this Republican caution rather than a head-on challenge to the ruling. Even among Trump's supporters, few seem willing to publicly defend the idea that a presidential executive order could rewrite a constitutional amendment.*

## 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.

*This may be the most human aspect of this story, often lost in abstract legal debates: entire families lived in anguish for months because of an order the Court has now called unconstitutional. That anguish was avoidable, and it should never be treated as a minor detail.*

## 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.

*I close this essay with a conviction: the American Constitution has once again shown that it remains sturdier than the ambitions of any single man, even one holding the country's highest office. But that institutional resistance is never guaranteed — it must be defended decision after decision.*

**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

- 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

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/trois-defaites-cinglantes-pour-trump-cloturent-le-mandat-de-la-cour-supreme