DX
Download Download Now
National

June 29 Supreme Court Rulings: Trump Scores Agency Power Win, Mail Ballots Upheld, Privacy Win On Geofence Surveillance

Supreme Court June 29 Rulings Explained | Image by Mehaniq/Shutterstock

The U.S. Supreme Court issued several major decisions on June 29, 2026, the final day of its 2025-2026 term, addressing President Donald Trump’s authority over independent agencies, mail-in ballot deadlines, and law enforcement surveillance tools.


Victory for Presidential Removal Power: Trump v. Slaughter

In Trump v. Slaughter (25-332), the Court ruled 6-3 that the Federal Trade Commission’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners are unconstitutional, allowing President Trump to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.

For President Trump, the Slaughter decision represents a clear victory on executive authority. It comes alongside his administration’s efforts to reshape federal agencies and removes longstanding statutory protections that limited at-will removal of certain officials.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, holding that such limits violate the separation of powers under Article II. Justices Clarence Thomas (except as to Part III-B), Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the judgment. Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion.

The ruling reverses lower court decisions that had blocked Slaughter’s removal and overrules aspects of the 1935 precedent Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. It expands presidential control over multi-member independent agencies.


Mixed Result on Federal Reserve: Trump v. Cook

In a related matter, Trump v. Cook (25A312), the Court denied the government’s application to stay an injunction protecting Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from removal (5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts), leaving her in place pending further litigation.

The Federal Reserve case delivered a partial setback for the administration, revealing limits on presidential power when it comes to disrupting the Fed’s long-standing monetary policy independence.

Election Ruling: Mail-In Ballots

The Court also upheld Mississippi’s mail-in ballot law in Watson v. Republican National Committee (24-1260). By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled that federal election-day statutes do not preempt state laws allowing absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later to be counted. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion.

The decision affects roughly 30 states with similar grace periods ahead of the 2026 midterms.


Privacy Protections: Geofence Warrants

In Chatrie v. United States (25-112), the Court held (6-3, opinion by Justice Elena Kagan) that police use of geofence warrants to obtain cell-phone location data constitutes a Fourth Amendment search because individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such data. The judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings on the warrant’s particularity and other requirements.


Broader Context: Immigration and Practical Implications

These rulings come as the Court has already issued decisions on immigration enforcement, including allowing the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for certain Haitian and Syrian nationals and reviving asylum metering policies.

For Americans, the decisions carry several practical implications. The expanded presidential removal power from Trump v. Slaughter could lead to faster policy shifts at agencies like the FTC, potentially affecting regulation of commerce, consumer protection, and competition.

The mail-ballot ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee preserves flexibility in voting procedures for millions of voters in states with grace periods, particularly overseas, military, and rural voters.

The geofence decision in Chatrie v. United States bolsters privacy protections against broad digital surveillance by requiring stricter Fourth Amendment safeguards for police access to cell-phone location data.


Looking Ahead

Moving forward, the term’s end-of-June flurry reinforces the Court’s role in delineating executive power boundaries. Additional cases on birthright citizenship (Trump v. Barbara), “transgender” athletes in sports, and other issues were either resolved earlier or carried implications for state authority and individual rights.

The decisions were issued from the Supreme Court building in Washington, with opinions available on the Court’s website. No additional opinions are expected until the October 2026 term.

Previous Article
When To See The Strawberry Moon Peak On June 29 – Low & Golden When To See The Strawberry Moon Peak On June 29 – Low & Golden
Next Article
Venezuela Quake Death Toll Hits 1,719+: Pro Soccer Players Lose Loved Ones In Rubble Venezuela Quake Death Toll Hits 1,719+: Pro Soccer Players Lose Loved Ones In Rubble