Supreme Court gives Trump broad power to fire agency heads

Every story from Shortwave NPR Science podcast starts with a question. Like, why do we have nightmares? How does AI affect my energy bill? At NPR, we are here for your right to be curious about the world around you. Follow shortwave wherever you get your podcasts, because the more you ask, the more interesting the world gets. It is the final week of the Supreme Court's term. So we have a few big decisions today to unpack, and politically, It was a mixed bag for the president.

On the one hand, the court did not restrict mail-in-voting like he was hoping they would. On the other, a reversal of precedent that will give Trump more power to fire the heads of independent federal agencies. Let's get into it.

It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting. I'm Ashley Lopez at cover politics. And I'm Tamara Keith, senior political correspondent. And let's start with this mail-in ballot case. Ashley, remind us what this one was all about. So this case is about a law in Mississippi that basically allows election officials to count mail and ballots that are postmarked by Election Day, but arrive to election officials after Election Day, up to five days in Mississippi's case.

18 states and territories allow most of their voters to have their ballots counted after Election Day. And something like 30 states, at least provide this to overseas voters, so like military members. So what did the court decide then on this issue? Well, it was a really interesting decision. Ideologically split. It was Amy Coney Barrett who wrote the opinion. And she basically cited against Republicans on this. This was a case brought by the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign ahead of the 2024 election.

And they argued that states are basically unlawfully extending their elections by counting these ballots. Because Congress sets when election day is, their argument is like if you're counting ballots after, you're breaking the law. But Amy Coney Barrett said, no, I don't agree with this. I think voting ends when voters stop voting, not when ballots are received. And it was a pretty interesting opinion. I mean, I sat in on that hearing at the Supreme Court, and it sounded like most of the conservative justices were skeptical of the case for these particular grace period law. So, yeah, it was a pretty stunning. I should say the Chief Justice, John Roberts, also sided with the liberals on the court in this case.

Yeah, and I will also say, I mean, I feel like that voting official I talk to, we're all based on listening to those arguments expecting the court to rule differently. So I'm also curious, Tam, how the president's taking all this, considering for years he has railed against vote by mail, though I should note he does use vote by mail ballots. But how is he responding to this ruling? He obviously does not like this ruling. And in a very unsurprising development suggests that this ruling is just another argument for those things. that he really wants, which is the Save America Act that we talked about multiple times on the podcast last week. And he says there is only one reason to oppose it cheating. That's basically where we are, is that he is using this loss as a way to argue that he should get what he wants on the Save America Act. The RNC, the Republican National Committee, which was part of this case, also weighed in and said that if we want fair and secure elections, election day should mean exactly what it says, which is why this decision makes it even more imperative that Congress

passed the Save America Act. I will just note that the Save America Act does not weigh in on the timing by which ballots need to be received as long as they're postmarked on Election Day. So the Save America Act is in fact not actually in its current form an answer to this concern, but never miss an opportunity, I guess, is where we are. Yeah, I mean, the Save America Act as far as mail-in voting goes, I think all it includes is requiring people voting by mail to enclose like a copy of their voter ID of whatever identification they're using to vote. It doesn't say anything about receipt deadlines. And, you know, I'll just say like an important thing to remember about these cases. And I'm going to say we're talking about Mississippi here, but there were several cases filed by the RNC and the Trump campaign ahead of the 2024 election aimed at undermining these grace period laws. And the whole argument, and I remember talking to Democrats at the time, their whole argument against these was like, one, these are old laws.

Like they go back to the civil war. Like, you know, mail takes time. Voters don't always remember on time, you know, when they're thinking about like, oh, how long is it going to take for my specific ballot to get to an election official? You know, these are kind of old laws. And by the way, courts heard these in places like Nevada. And across the board, most courts threw these cases out because they thought they were sort of frivolous. And Democrats at the time told me they think this is just an effort by the Trump campaign to undermine the potential results of the 2024 election. But remember, Trump won. So a lot of those arguments never, you know, got a hearing. So it just so happened that this case made its way to the Supreme Court. I do want to add one more thing about the Save America Act. which is that it would severely restrict vote by mail. It would limit who could vote by mail in many states, as you both know better than I do, there is universal vote by mail. States like Colorado and California also Oregon have gone to largely vote by mail.

Yeah, I mean, you would think based on Trump's arguments and the facts of this case that this is a pretty partisan fight, but it's actually not really. I mean, one of the interesting things about this is that you had the R&C was facing the state of Mississippi, which is a Republican state. And they passed, their grace period law for mail ballots was passed under Republican governor and a Republican legislature. So it is a little bit, and it's not just Democrats who's used vote by mail. I mean, traditionally, especially pre-pandemic, it was more Republicans or more conservatives, older voters, military voters. These are the people who you would think about when using vote by mail. So it's not as strict of a partisan an issue as I think the president sometimes likes to make it out to be. Yeah, but whatever the president

makes partisan becomes partisan, right? So you have seen some states roll back their grace periods. And I wouldn't be surprised, honestly, if Mississippi, you know, wasn't sort of thinking as the Supreme Court ruling as a way of restricting their program. Like, they very likely could be before the state legislature. And that would be on par with what Republicans are doing. But you're absolutely right. In terms of effect, it is nonpartisan. Actually, the Nevada Secretary of State sent out a statement on this ruling. And he mentioned that 60% of voters in their June primary use mail ballots. And the highest rates of usage were in rural counties. So rural voters, which tend to vote with Republicans. So the impact of something like this could be crossing political lines, although, you know,

I will say like the view of in favor of restrictions tends to fall mostly with the Republican Party on this issue. Oh, it's interesting, too, Tam, to see this ruling, kind of connect. to the trend that we were talking about on the podcast last week in terms of states have the power to run elections and set the rules the way they want to. We talked about all the different cases, the executive order cases that courts have ruled against Trump in. I guess I wonder if you see this as part of that same kind of trend. Yeah. I mean, if you look at the decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, it is very clear about what the Constitution says about states managing elections. and the role of the federal government versus the role of state government. This is part of that larger trend that we were talking about last week, which is that the president wants control over something that the states have more jurisdiction over. The last thing before we take a break here, Ashley, that I just want to circle back to is just how voting officials are probably breathing a sigh of relief at this because the general election, the midterms, less than five months away. Primaries are still ongoing. It can't be emphasized enough how disruptive this would have been. Had the court had literally one justice ruled differently here,

we could be looking at a really different situation administratively for this election. Yeah, I mean, my inbox has been flooded with secretaries of state, you know, who run a lot of these folks like run the elections in their states saying like, yeah, this would have been a really big change right before an election. Now, I mean, there's like Paula. I've seen some reports that say over time voters tend to get used to deadlines. But changing deadlines like this right before an election would have been not just chaos for voters, but that would have been put a lot of onus on election officials during an already busy time to educate voters on this in the hopes that everyone knows that this is a new deadline. And you have to remember, like as Tam was saying,

there are states with universal mail and ballot programs. So a lot of people are used to not having to do a lot in terms of like getting ready to vote. There are states where there are a lot hurdles. Like I lived in Texas, like you have to do a lot in order to make sure you can vote. But in a place like Washington State, you don't, you know, as long as you're registered to vote, they send you a ballot, you don't have to ask for it. And you have a pretty, you know, big window to return it. Something like a quarter of a million ballots that came in after election day in 2024 in in Washington State were counted. And that would have been a big change in that state. So, yeah, this could have been chaos, you know, in the middle of all this gerrymandering change that could

have confused a lot of voters. Yeah, I mean, I think that we should just emphasize that there's been a lot going on this year. People's districts have changed. You don't know who's representing you. We've had redistricting in numerous states. There have been a lot of efforts to change the way people vote or at least a lot of conversation about changing the way people vote. And that all sort of bears on voters and and is part of the background music, the soundtrack of this election. And even though there have been a lot of losses for the president recently on this, I don't think that we should say, all right, everything's done, clean, let's move on. I think that there's going to be a lot of talk ongoing about election rules and any number of other things all the way up to Election Day and beyond. Well, let's leave it there for now. We will cover those developments as they come in. Ashley, thank you so much for joining us today.

Yeah, thank you. All right. We're going to take a quick break and more on news from the Supreme Court right after this. Hi, it's Terry Gross, host of fresh air. Hey, take a break from the 24-hour news cycle with us and listen to long-form interviews with your favorite authors, actors, actors, filmmakers, comedians, and musicians, the people making the art that nourishes us and speaks to our times. So listen to the Fresh Air podcast from NPR and WHYY.

This week on Shortwave, could your next ride to the airport be in a flying taxi? So you open up your Uber app and you've got UberX and Uber Pet and now they'll be Uber Air. That reality may be only a few years away. But how is this futuristic travel possible? Find out on Shortwave NPR Science Podcast. Listen on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. Every episode of It's Been a Minute, NPR's What's Happening in Culture Podcasts starts by asking three questions. Who? How? Why now? If the culture's asking it, we're talking about it. At NPR, we stand for your right to be curious and indulge your cultural curiosity.

Follow it's been a minute wherever you get your podcasts. And we'll break down the zeitgeisty topics that are filling your feed. And we are back with NPR's Carrie Johnson, who covers the Supreme Court. Hi, Carrie. Hey, Miles. So the court also issued two rulings today related to whether the president can fire certain agency leaders. Carrie, can you get us up to speed on what these cases were? Yeah, this first case involves a former commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission who was appointed by a Democratic president. President Trump tried to fire her soon after he came back to D.C. and reentered the White House. And she had protested saying the Federal Trade Commission was launched via a federal law that requires a president to find some kind of inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office in order to fire somebody on the FTC.

And he didn't have any of those things. The second case involved Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board, also appointed by a Democratic President. And in August 2025, President Trump tried to fire Lisa Cook over allegations that she had made false statements on mortgage papers long before she became a member of the Federal Reserve Board. Lisa Cook quickly went to court and a lower court blocked the president from removing her from office. That's the case the Supreme Court heard. Got it. And so this FTC commissioner's name was Rebecca Slaughter, what did the court decide in her case and also with Lisa Cook? The Rebecca Slaughter case came out six to three. The court, conservative supermajority, determined that the president had the authority to fire slaughter and that he did not have to find any kind of inefficiency or malfeasance in office like that old statute said.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority. The court majority found that that for cause, firing for cause provision, under the law is contrary to the separation of powers and that this is within a president's authority. Miles, this is a huge grant of authority to President Trump in particular and to future presidents. It basically gives the president the kind of unitary executive power. He's been claiming since he returned to office basically just by citing his article to power under the Constitution. He can now get rid of a lot of members of what we used to consider, independent agencies. Yeah, like there's quite a few independent agencies, agencies that were created by

Congress to have some measure of independence from the president so that they could operate at a remove from politics and political considerations. And this essentially says, yeah, but you're part of the executive branch and the executive has ultimate power, that executive being Donald Trump. He has some feelings about this decision. He loves it. And in a statement on Trump, Truth Social, he writes, to show the importance of the slaughter case, 90 years of precedent has been completely and unequivocally overruled, greatly increasing presidential power at a time when it is most needed, President Donald J. Trump. I think that people who disagree with this decision would agree with the president's statement about what it did. Yeah, I mean, the president mentioned this 90 years of precedent. This is a reference to a case called Humphrey's executor, right? Carrie, can you explain a little bit about what that case was and how today's ruling interacts with it?

That Humphreys' executor case actually involved a different president trying to fire a different person on the Federal Trade Commission way back in the day. Yes. Yes, but the court came out very differently this time around. And Chief Justice John Roberts said that's because the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, has a lot more power than it did nearly 100 years ago. And he also said that a president should not have to be saddled with people who are carrying out presidential orders under the power of the executive branch. And the chief justice and the other five conservatives on the court basically said that subordinates remain accountable to the president and the president is the one who's accountable to the people. So if you don't like the way this has come out, Congress can pass a new law or,

you can vote the president out of office here. I have to admit, I'm a little bit confused because we have the court saying that slaughter can be fired at the FTC, but today the court also ruled that Trump could not fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve. Can you explain the distinction here, Carrie? What's different about these cases? Well, that's a good question, and it's puzzled some of the liberals on the court, to be honest with you, Miles. in a separate decision, Chief John Roberts wrote in a five to four ruling here that Lisa Cook should be able to remain in office for now, but that President Trump can still go back and try to find a way to assert she has done something wrong and therefore he can try again to fire her and remove her from office. The difference in the Lisa Cook case, one, is that the president didn't give her,

an opportunity to respond to these allegations that she engaged in wrongdoing with respect to her mortgage filings way back in the day. And they didn't give her a deadline to respond. In other words, she was kind of fired via truth social post and letter and didn't have the kind of process that's required, you know, in these cases. The other thing the court said is that the Federal Reserve is different. The Federal Reserve has, according to the court majority, a unique historical status. where the appearance of independence is key, and that's because monetary policy is so very important to this court majority. A lot of the dissenters raised questions about why the Fed is different and whether there really is that kind of carve out for the Fed going back to the founding in the 1780s and the like. And I don't think we've seen the end of this.

It seems quite clear the president is not done with Lisa Cook of the Fed. And interestingly enough, Lisa Cook issued her own statement saying that she was not fired because of any kind of manufactured or pretextual issue with respect to mortgage filings. But rather, she didn't do what the president wanted on interest rates. And that's why you wanted to get rid of her. Yeah. And what the president said in his post about this is that, quote, we will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who is committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the welfare of the United States of America. America. As Kerry says, President Trump and his administration are not done. And I think that the big picture here is important, which is that President Trump is incredibly frustrated with the Federal Reserve

for not lowering interest rates and supercharging the economy, which is what he wants. The Federal Reserve, however, has multiple equities to consider, including price stability, avoiding inflation or limiting inflation as well as full employment. And so the president, even though the Fed is supposed to be independent and though the independence of the Fed is pretty critical to the balance in the force with our financial markets and the global financial marketplace, the president really, really would like to control the Fed. And having appointees who are not beholden to him on the Fed continues to be a challenge to his ability to push the Fed to change interest. rates because every federal reserve board governor gets a vote on what the rates should be.

I want to turn back to the slaughter case just for a moment here because, Carrie, both you and Tam have mentioned basically just how big of a deal this decision could be for the federal government. I want to dig into that a little bit more. Do we know, I guess, what other agencies could be impacted by this decision or how broadly this could be felt in the federal government? More than a dozen other agencies could be implicated. Among them, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These are very, very big agencies with very serious responsibilities.

And over time, there's been a buildup of competence and expertise. And the danger here, according to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who actually read her dissent from the bench, and the danger to people like Max Tom Steyer at the Partnership for Public Service, is that this will unleash chaos on these agencies and maybe even give a green light to President Trump to destroy other guardrails that protect other parts of the civil service. This could really be open season for Donald Trump and his White House to get rid of a lot more people. people within the federal government and change the way that consumers are protected. This is an enormous deal. Yeah. And just worth noting that as we speak, the Trump administration is pushing for expanded nuclear energy generation as part of its desire to help AI data centers.

So like, this is not completely academic. I do want to read a little bit from what Max Tom Steyer of the Partnership for Public Service said in his statement, which Kerry referenced. He says, without the guarantee of independence, boards and commission members will now make decisions under the constant threat of politically motivated removal. That is compliance, not independence, and the American people will pay the price. I think that we are in a moment where cynicism is a powerful force. And if people lose faith that the government is acting in some sort of independent fashion that cynicism only grows. One more thing from the dissent here by Sonia Sotomayor, which she read at great length from the bench today,

she actually made the point that the majority holding here in this slaughter case involving the FTC commissioner gives a president more power than the king would have in a parliamentary system. There's a lot of rhetoric now in politics about... About kings. And Sonia Sotomayor walked right into it today from the bench. I should also note, tomorrow is the last day of the Supreme Court term this year, Carrie. What else are we expecting or what other cases are you watching that we're going to get opinions on? Yeah, depending on how you count, we're going to get three or four more opinions. The marquee case of the term is President Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship. And so we're going to find out tomorrow what the Supreme Court thinks about who counts as an American.

There's a pair of cases involving the participation of trans students and sports at the high school and the college level. And then finally, there's a case that challenges some campaign finance limits that bar political parties from a a lot of collaboration with political candidates about funding. It's a case that's been very important to the Republican National Committee in particular. So some big ones to come yet. All right. Well, we can leave it there. And tomorrow we will cover those.

I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover politics. And I'm Carrie Johnson. I cover the Supreme Court and the Justice Department. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast.

You know, every day on Up First, NPR's Golden Globe nominated morning news podcast, we bring you three essential stories. At the heart of each story are questions. What really happened? What really mattered? What happens next? At NPR, we stand for your right to be curious and to follow the facts. Follow up first wherever you get your podcasts and start your day knowing what matters and why. Each story you hear on Planet Money starts with a question.

question. What happens if we refund tariffs? Why are groceries so expensive? At NPR, we stand for your right to be curious, because the forces shaping our world can be hard to see. Follow NPR's Planet Money wherever you get your podcasts and start seeing how the economy really works.