Supreme Court shields Fed independence while expanding presidential power over other agencies

The Supreme Court just handed down a decision that effectively tells the president: you can fire a lot of people, but not the ones who control interest rates.

In a pair of rulings issued June 29, the Court voted 5-4 in Trump v. Cook to block President Trump’s effort to immediately remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her position. At the same time, in Trump v. Slaughter, the justices voted 6-3 to dramatically expand presidential authority to terminate officials at other independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission. The result is a legal framework that treats the Fed as fundamentally different from every other independent regulator in the US government.

Two rulings, one message: the Fed is special

Chief Justice John Roberts authored both opinions. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 precedent that had limited the president’s ability to fire officials at independent agencies. That nearly century-old guardrail is now gone for agencies like the FTC.

But Roberts drew a sharp line at the Fed’s door. The ruling explicitly stated that Fed governors can only be removed “for cause,” preserving the insulation that has defined central banking independence since the Fed’s modern structure took shape. Fed governors serve staggered 14-year terms precisely to prevent any single president from stacking the board. That design survived this legal challenge intact.

Cook was first targeted for removal in August 2025, marking a historic first. No sitting president had ever attempted to oust a Federal Reserve governor in this manner. The 5-4 vote to deny Trump’s stay request means Cook continues serving while the underlying litigation plays out.

The other side of the coin: expanded removal power everywhere else

While the Fed dodged the bullet, the same cannot be said for other regulators. The Slaughter ruling’s expansion of presidential removal authority has immediate implications for agencies that directly touch crypto.

The FTC, the SEC, the CFTC, and other independent commissions now operate under a different legal reality. Their leaders serve at the pleasure of the president in a way they didn’t before Humphrey’s Executor was overturned.

What investors should watch next

The immediate market reaction to the ruling has been positive, particularly in equities. Analysts view the preservation of Fed independence as a stabilizing signal that reduces policy uncertainty.

For crypto specifically, three things deserve attention going forward. First, watch how the underlying Cook litigation proceeds. The Supreme Court only denied the stay request. The broader legal question of whether a president can remove a Fed governor for reasons other than cause remains technically unresolved, though the Court’s language strongly signals where it will land.

Second, monitor how the expanded removal power over other agencies reshapes crypto regulation. If the SEC and CFTC leadership become more directly accountable to the White House, expect regulatory priorities to shift faster and more dramatically with each administration change.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.