The Supreme Court did hand the President a real win on June 29. It also, the same day, told him no. You would not know the second part from the way he described the first.
In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court voted 6-3 to overrule Humphrey's Executor, a precedent that had stood for 90 years, and to let a president fire the commissioners who run independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission without cause. [2] That is a genuine expansion of presidential power, and a large one. Within hours, the President posted that "90 years of precedent has been COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY OVERRULED, greatly increasing Presidential Power at a time when it is most needed!" [1]
"Completely and unequivocally" is the tell. The same Court, on the same day, refused to let him fire the official he most wanted gone.
THE RULING Trump v. Slaughter, June 29, 6-3: the Court overruled Humphrey's Executor and struck down the FTC's for-cause removal protection. A real win. [2]
The part the post leaves out
In a companion case handed down the same day, Trump v. Cook, the Court refused, 5-4, to let the President remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. [4] She keeps her seat while the litigation goes on. The Slaughter majority, meanwhile, went out of its way to say it was not deciding whether its new rule reaches the Federal Reserve at all, treating the Fed as a special arrangement rooted in history. [3]
THE CARVEOUT
- Trump v. Cook, June 29, 5-4: the Court would NOT let Trump fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, at least for now. [4]
- The Slaughter majority expressly declined to extend its holding to the Federal Reserve. [3]
Data
| Slaughter (FTC): can fire | 6 justices in the majority |
|---|---|
| Cook (Fed): cannot fire, for now | 5 justices in the majority |
The strongest version of his case
Give the claim its best footing. This was still a major ruling. Humphrey's Executor had governed the separation of powers for nearly a century, and overturning it hands the presidency real control over a long list of agencies, the FTC, the FDIC, the SEC, and others. [2][3] Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the FTC alone "enforces and administers some 80 statutes, which cover almost every facet of our Nation's economy." [4] Nobody should undersell that. If the President had posted that he won a historic case, he would have been right.
Why "unequivocally" is the wrong word
Unequivocal means without exception. This ruling has a large one, written into the same day's docket: the Fed. A president who could fire the Federal Reserve chair could lean on interest rates for political reasons, and the Court just declined to hand him that. Justice Sotomayor's dissent warned about precisely the "unitary, total executive control" the majority was reaching toward. [4] The President is describing a total victory the Court specifically withheld.
THE BOTTOM LINE The Court expanded his power over the FTC and refused to extend it to the Fed, on the same day. "Completely and unequivocally" describes a ruling he did not get.
The honest headline is that presidential power grew, and that the growth stopped at the one door the President most wanted open. Both are true. Only one of them made the post.
