7 Rulings Left: Supreme Court to Decide 3 Trump Removal Power Cases

For legal practitioners and compliance officers, the upcoming decisions represent a pivotal moment in separation-of-powers doctrine. The three Trump cases directly confront the ‘for cause’ removal standard that has protected agency independence since Humphrey’s Executor. The Court’s conservative majority appears split on how far to extend unitary executive control, raising existential questions about the future of the administrative state, regulatory consistency, and the enforceability of statutory safeguards against political interference.

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to conclude its 2025–2026 term within days, with seven cases still unresolved as of June 28, 2026. Among them are three disputes that directly test the scope of presidential removal powers under Donald Trump’s administration: the firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, the dismissal of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, and an executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The rulings, expected as early as Monday, June 29, 2026, will shape not only the immediate legality of those actions but also the long-standing balance between the executive branch and independent agencies, with far-reaching consequences for administrative law and regulatory independence.

“

The birthright citizenship executive order, issued last year, challenges the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S.

This term has already demonstrated the Court’s willingness to back the administration on immigration and emergency matters, even as it delivered a sharp defeat in February 2026 by striking down sweeping tariffs imposed under a national-emergency statute. The conservative 6–3 majority has sent mixed signals during oral arguments, reflecting internal tensions over unitary executive theory and the limits of presidential control. The Fed case, in particular, presents a novel question: no president since the central bank’s founding in 1913 has attempted to fire a sitting governor, and the governing statute requires removal “for cause” without defining that term. Trump cited unsubstantiated mortgage fraud allegations against Cook, which she denied, arguing the charges were a pretext to oust her over monetary policy disagreements. During January 2026 arguments, several justices expressed skepticism toward the president’s asserted unilateral power, indicating that at least some conservatives may be unwilling to dismantle the Fed’s traditional insulation from political pressure.

By contrast, the FTC removal case, argued in December 2025, saw the conservative wing signaling comfort with dismissing a Democratic commissioner over policy differences alone. That case directly tests whether the Supreme Court will extend its 2020 decision in Seila Law v. CFPB, which allowed the president to remove the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s single director at will, to multi-member commissions with for-cause protections. A ruling upholding Slaughter’s firing could significantly weaken the independence of agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, potentially subjecting all regulatory bodies to greater political whims.

The birthright citizenship executive order, issued last year, challenges the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction. While lower courts have blocked the order, the Supreme Court’s eventual decision will be a landmark constitutional ruling on a question that has divided legal scholars for decades. Coupled with the removal cases, the term’s final week will deliver a verdict on the transformative vision of executive power advanced by the Trump administration.