Supreme Court Limits Presidential Powers with Three Critical Rulings

As the current judicial term nears its end, the Supreme Court of the United States has announced historic decisions regarding three major cases. The Court presented divided votes, ruling against the Trump administration in two of these decisions and in favor of it in one. While presidential powers were restricted particularly on the issues of mail-in voting and the removal of Federal Reserve members, they were strongly expanded in the Federal Trade Commission case. These decisions carry great importance in terms of redrawing the boundaries of the executive branch's authority over independent agencies in the USA. These final decisions of the Supreme Court are of a nature that will leave profound and long-lasting effects on the country's administrative and political structure.

The additional five-day extension granted by the state of Mississippi for mail-in ballots postmarked on election day but received later was upheld by a 5-4 vote. The Court rejected the Trump administration's objection on the grounds that the constitution leaves election regulations to the states, not the federal government. In the case between the Republican National Committee and Watson, the majority evaluating the issue ruled that states have broad discretion in determining their own election laws. With this decision, it became certain that the rule in question will remain in effect at least until the next midterm elections. The Trump administration had attempted to suspend this law, passed by Mississippi's Republican-majority legislature, on the grounds of election security.

The Supreme Court also prevented Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook from being removed from her position until the relevant cases are resolved. The Trump administration had attempted to dismiss her by putting forward mortgage fraud allegations against Cook. However, in the decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts and again accepted by a 5-4 vote, it was emphasized that such a removal would be contrary to national traditions dictating that the Central Bank must be protected from political interference. The Court stated that the executive branch's stance would transform the institution's protection by "for cause" into an arbitrary employment relationship. In the reasoned decision, it was clearly stated that the law enacted by Congress and the centuries-old banking tradition do not allow for such political pressure.

On the other hand, the Court struck down an old federal law stipulating that Federal Trade Commission (FTC) officials could only be removed "for cause." This decision, made by a 6-3 vote, paved the way for the Trump administration to arbitrarily fire FTC officials. This ruling, considered a major victory for advocates of the "unitary executive" theory, also invalidated a previous Supreme Court decision. Thanks to this precedent-setting decision, the president's power of control over dozens of independent federal agencies increased significantly. Thus, the executive branch's capacity to shape appointments and dismissals in independent agencies according to its own political vision was formalized.

The Supreme Court's busy agenda is not limited to just these three fundamental issues. In addition, decisions on highly controversial topics such as birthright citizenship, conditions for transgender athletes' participation in competitions, and election finance are expected to be announced on Tuesday. It is certain that these upcoming rulings will also ignite societal debates and affect political balances. All these precedent-setting decisions reveal the decisive role the Supreme Court plays in reshaping the legal and administrative framework of the USA. It is anticipated that ideological polarization will continue similarly in the new decisions to be announced in the coming days and will yield profound results in the country.