The extent of executive power in the United States has long been one of the most contested legal questions. Two rulings in particular, Trump v Cook and Trump v Slaughter both decided on June 29, 2026, highlight the complexity of applying constitutional principles to contemporary legal disputes. Two seemingly similar cases resulted in vastly different outcomes, effectively altering government processes, the nature of the separations of power, and instilling new federal priorities.
Influence of Past Decisions
Dating back to 1803 with the Marbury vs Madison decision, the Supreme Court has been within its right to limit executive power through the process of judicial review. Instances of the court rejecting Executive overreach could be based on lack of authority or unconstitutionality. The case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer provides a relevant example. The Court ruled that President Truman acted beyond the scope of his power when he issued an executive order to Charles Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce, to take control of a large number of the nation’s steel mills during the Korean war. United States v. Nixon similarly restricted executive authority by determining that presumed “executive privilege” was not a valid defense to a court-ordered subpoena during an investigation of the Watergate scandal. Myers v. The United States conversely upheld presidential authority to remove government officials under the executive branch without approval from the Senate. Each such case is carefully considered with maintenance of the balance of power in mind, as outlined in the constitution.
Trump v Cook: The Autonomy of the Federal Reserve
The issues that have existed for over two centuries continue to show their relevance in contemporary disputes. The Court in Trump v Cook, a case that garnered immense attention from the public and the media, determined that President Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Board member, Lisa Cook, from her designated position without due process was unconstitutional. Nominated and confirmed as a governor to the Federal Bank under the Biden administration in 2023, Cook was to serve a standard 14-year term. However, her good-standing was jeopardized when the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency brought attention to the Governor’s alleged mortgage fraud that occurred just prior to her nomination in 2021. President Trump issued a statement removing Cook from her position, under the assertion that these accusations of illegal activity rendered her “untrustworthy.”
Cook argued that her termination was unlawful, as she was not given prior notice or due process. Her argument cited the Banking Act of 1935, which asserts that government positions with fixed terms require a hearing preceding dismissal. Trump countered these claims, arguing that “life, liberty, and property,” the bases for due process, were not evident in this case. He similarly refuted the relevance of the Banking Act, stating that it posed no barriers to her removal.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cook in a 5-4 decision, upholding the issuance of an injunction by the district court. She may remain in her position pending the outcome of litigation. A notable factor to consider when evaluating this decision is the longstanding emphasis that has been placed on keeping separation between the Government and the Federal Reserve. A vital responsibility of the reserve is to strategically set interest rates to manage inflation levels, a task that must be kept objective. Politicians often publicize their opinions on monetary policy, but it is imperative that operations are not dependent on a government official trying to obtain favor from voters.
The Cook ruling effectively limits executive power. The absence of a sufficient argument for for-cause termination invalidated Trump’s attempts to remove Cook without formal procedures. The emphasis on differentiation between the government’s role and the role of the Federal Reserve is further affirmed through this ruling.
Trump v Slaughter: Agencies Under Executive Control
The decision in Trump v Slaughter, another case regarding termination of government officials, yielded a completely different result. Rebecca Slaughter, a former Federal Trade Commissioner, was removed from office by President Trump, who cited inconsistencies between Slaughter’s position and the stances held by his administration. The Biden appointee sued for absence of statutory cause following her termination. The case was decided against her.
The FTC functions to protect Americans from unlawful business practices, balancing the fine line between aid and interference. In Slaughter’s case, the Court determined that the Federal Trade Commission, along with other agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board, operate under Executive Power. This distinction from the Cook v Trump ruling led to the conclusion that the President was within his rights to remove an official in an agency under his purview. The for-cause requirement for termination was not necessary, and at-will removal of such officials based solely on presidential resolve is not deemed unconstitutional. This ruling reverses a 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor v United States, in which the Court unanimously decided that the removal of an FTC official based on policy differences was unconstitutional. Hence, this reversal leads to more power in the hands of the president and redefines executive boundaries.
Closing Thoughts
The nuances of these two cases resulting in entirely different rulings highlight the importance of legal interpretation and adhering to the facts of each individual case. The decisions from June 29, with Trump v Cook highlighting an example of overreach whereas Trump v Slaughter affirmed Presidential authority, go to show the importance and complexity of checks and balances. Concern over maintaining a balanced and just democracy continues to be of the utmost importance for Americans, and the Supreme Court’s indispensable role in upholding those principles does not go unnoticed.
Edited by Danielle Sugarman.
This is an article written by a Staff Writer. Catalyst is a student-led platform that fosters engagement with global issues from a learning perspective. The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
Catherine Hearle is in her second year at McGill studying Philosophy and Economics. She has been a staff writer for Catalyst since February 2026, and is particularly interested in the intersection between religion and politics.