Among the slew of decisions being released in the days before the United States Supreme Court adjourns for the summer, two focus on the key issue of presidential or executive power.

Each ruling relates specifically to a U.S. president’s ability to remove officeholders in agencies established under acts of Congress. In Trump v. Slaughter, the court ruled 6-3 that the president can fire at will the heads or staff of independent regulatory agencies (in this case, the Federal Trade Commission). In Trump v. Cook, however, the court determined 5-4 that the president could not fire a governor of the Federal Reserve Board without cause or due process.

On the surface, the two rulings seem to be in opposition to each other. Yet both underscore a defining characteristic of American democracy – the delicate yet shifting equilibrium among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches that underpins the business of governing. Such balancing acts play out regularly in Washington, in state capitals, and – with less fanfare, perhaps – at county and city levels, as well as within local school boards and civic organizations.

The Federal Trade Commission ruling affirmed presidents’ authority to appoint and alter executive teams so they include members who support their policy priorities, much the same way private sector CEOs form their management teams. The ruling aligns with what’s known as “unitary executive theory,” a concept gaining ground among jurists and policymakers since the 1980s. In this view, the U.S. Constitution gives the president “complete power over the executive branch, including ... domestic and foreign policy, [and] the ability to unilaterally remove government officials,” as a recent Monitor article explained.

But when it comes to the Fed, the court indicated this agency holds a distinct place in the regulatory pantheon. The decision acknowledges the Fed’s unique and outsize role in steadying not just the U.S. economy, but also global markets. The procedural ruling was that the president could not block Fed Governor Lisa Cook from continuing to serve while she pursues a legal case against her August 2025 ouster. (No Fed governors have been fired in its 111-year existence.)

The majority’s written opinion went beyond the specific ruling to refer to “our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, referring to this as a “special arrangement sanctioned by history.”

“The Founders,” he noted, “knew from experience the calamities that could arise from even the ‘suspicion’ of political manipulation of monetary policy.”

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Scott Alvarez, former general counsel for the Fed, told The New York Times that this ruling “helped to reinforce the court as a guardrail for Fed independence.” But, as he and other analysts pointed out, it does not entirely insulate the central bank from further executive actions under the current or future presidents.

That might be left to another day, if and when Congress steps in to adjust legislation. At that time, what may once again appear to be an antagonistic push and pull among elected representatives, appointed officials, and legislating bodies will be better viewed as the robust give-and-take that reflects politics and democracy at work.