Category: Washington Post

The Supreme Court greatly expanded President Donald Trump’s control over the federal bureaucracy Monday, but stopped short of allowing him to undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve in a pair of rulings that amount to one of the largest verdicts on the scope of presidential power in decades.

In a 6-3 ideologically divided decision, the justices struck down a nearly century-old precedent that has allowed Congress to insulate the leaders of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and roughly two dozen other independent regulatory agencies from political influence by requiring the president have good reason to dismiss them.

The ruling is likely to usher in major changes to the structure of the federal government, and it fulfills a major goal of the Trump administration and many conservatives who have long argued that the president should exercise nearly unfettered authority over the executive branch.

In the other related case, a group of justices blocked Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, at least for now, in a 5-4 ruling that found the powerful central bank has a distinct history and structure that allows Congress to carve out protections for its governors, unlike other independent agencies.

Taken together, the cases amount to a split political decision for Trump, who has pushed aggressively in his second term to assert his authority over federal government by dismissing agency heads, restructuring departments, and firing thousands of federal workers.

Trump hailed the ruling in the FTC case as a “BIG WIN” in a post on Truth Social, while saying he would continue the fight to try to remove Cook.

“90 years of precedent has been COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY OVERRULED, greatly increasing Presidential Power at a time when it is most needed!” Trump wrote.

Republicans said the FTC ruling would make the government more accountable to voters who elect the president, but Democrats and some former agency officials worried it would lead to the politicization of regulations on product safety, elections, nuclear energy, and much more. The ruling in the Cook case is provisional and it will return to the lower courts for additional legal wrangling.

The majority said the Constitution’s plain language gives the president control of the executive branch, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court’s other two liberals, said in dissent that the nation’s founders clearly envisioned the existence of agencies whose independence would be protected by Congress. Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench to signal her strong disagreement with the majority.

“Today, the majority replaces 90 years of proven, workable practice with a half-baked theory of executive power that is simultaneously all encompassing yet also subject to necessary but undefined exceptions,” she wrote. “The one thing that does appear to be clear going forward is that chaos will follow.”

Sotomayor said the ruling would upset the structure of numerous agencies — such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission — that Congress created to make decisions based on nonpartisan expertise and technical knowledge. Most are run by bipartisan, multimember commissions.

Gillian Metzger, a Columbia University law professor and expert on administrative law, said she was struck by the breadth of the FTC ruling, which could give Trump direct control over virtually all federal employees.

“There’s language in the Slaughter majority opinion that is exceptionally broad,” Metzger said, referring to the case’s name. “The president has the power to remove at will his subordinates. That is extraordinarily broad.”

Metzger said it was notable that the court cited no exceptions for the civil service protections that protect many federal workers from arbitrary dismissal or political retaliation. That could mean the court is possibly granting the president greater authority to remove federal workers, she said, although other court precedents protect them.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion, joined by the court’s five other conservatives. He said the congressionally-mandated protections that kept the president from firing Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, were unconstitutional.

“We hold that such protection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution,” Roberts wrote.

In the Federal Reserve case, the narrow majority from across the court’s ideological spectrum ruled that Cook could keep her job while a lawsuit challenging her dismissal plays out in the courts. The case could take months or years to resolve and appear again before the justices, who said Monday that Cook is likely to prevail.

Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the Cook case as well, joined by the court’s three liberals as well as conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Roberts wrote that Congress had created the Federal Reserve to operate with independence from the president.

“Any change in that scheme must come from Congress, not the courts,” he wrote. “That is why we cannot accept the Government’s contentions in this case. To do so would allow the President to remove a member of the Federal Reserve at any time, for any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after.”

Four of the court’s conservatives objected. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, wrote in a dissent that the Supreme Court was premature in taking up Cook’s case. Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett argued that the majority was wrong on the substance.

“Today’s decision is an unprecedented incursion on the Executive Branch,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “Neither the parties nor the Court can point to a single time in American history that this Court has upheld an injunction against the President’s removal of an executive officer.”

Legal experts had long expected the court to rule against the decades-old precedent affirming Congress’ right to create independent agencies, known as Humphrey’s Executor, because the justices have been chipping away at it for years. Roberts called it a “dried husk” during oral arguments in December.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly backed Trump’s efforts to remove the heads of independent agencies on its emergency docket, allowing him to dismiss members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission in rulings over the last year or so.

Likewise, the ruling in the Cook case came as little surprise because some justices had signaled they were interested in carving out an exception to the president’s removal authority for the Fed.

Trump fired Slaughter and the other Democrat on the five-member FTC, Alvaro Bedoya, without giving a cause in March 2025. The dismissals were part of a broader campaign by the president to remove perceived liberal leaders from independent agencies and replace them with loyalists.

Slaughter challenged her dismissal in federal court, saying Trump had exceeded his authority under the law creating the FTC. The law says the president can fire members only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The agency works on antitrust and consumer protection issues.

A federal judge cited the Humphrey’s Executor precedent in reinstating Slaughter to her position. That decision was upheld by an appeals court before the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Roberts paused Slaughter’s reinstatement in September so the high court could weigh the administration’s appeal.

During arguments in December, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said regulatory agencies like the FTC had become “a headless fourth branch insulated from political accountability and democratic control,” and that curbing the president’s power to remove agency heads infringed on his constitutional powers.

Trump has often disparaged the federal bureaucracy as a “deep state” determined to undermine his agenda. He has moved to fire thousands of federal workers, shutter agencies, and remove civil service protections to bring the government more firmly under his control.

Many in the administration support the so-called unitary executive theory, which holds that the Constitution vests direct control of the executive branch solely in the president, and he is free to fire any of its officials at will. Since the Reagan administration, conservatives have pushed to give the president greater control over hiring and firing in the government.

Trump initially nominated Slaughter to the FTC in 2018. She was unanimously approved by the Senate before President Joe Biden renominated her in 2023. Slaughter has become an outspoken critic of Trump’s efforts to cut the federal workforce.

Slaughter said she was disappointed with the ruling.

“What we have seen is a massive expansion of executive power at the expense of Congress, which has designed these agencies to work on behalf of the people and not the powerful,” Slaughter said.

The majority wrote in its Cook ruling Monday that the Fed is different from other independent agencies because its structure echoes U.S. national banks whose genesis goes back to before the Constitution.

Congress created the Fed to be independent of the president so it could make difficult decisions — such as raising interest rates — that are good for the health of the economy but may not be politically popular.

Trump is the first president in the Fed’s 112-year history to try to fire one of its board members. In August, Trump alleged that Cook claimed two homes as primary residences to get a better mortgage rate. In filings with the Supreme Court, Cook “unequivocally” denied the allegations.

The high court case revolved around whether Trump’s attempt to fire Cook complied with the Federal Reserve Act, which says Fed board members can only be ousted “for cause.”

Days after Trump announced on social media in August that he was firing Cook, she sued in federal court, arguing that Trump’s accusations did not meet the standard for “for cause” removal because the allegations occurred before she was on the Fed board and had not been proved. Her attorneys also said she had not been given due process.

A federal judge in D.C. sided with Cook, allowing her to remain on the job temporarily. A divided appeals court affirmed that decision, before the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court. The justices ruled in October that Cook could continue at the Fed while they considered her case.

During arguments in January, Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that the mortgage allegations gave Trump reason enough to fire Cook and that the courts did not have the authority to second-guess his determination.

“The American people should not have their interest rates determined by someone who was, at best, grossly negligent in obtaining favorable interest rates for herself,” Sauer said.

Paul D. Clement, an attorney for Cook, said the justices would be rash to rule on the Trump administration’s emergency request to oust Cook from her job without the benefit of additional fact-finding and legal proceedings.

“There is no reason to abandon more than 100 years of central bank independence on an emergency application,” Clement said.

After Monday’s ruling, Trump wrote on Truth Social that “we will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!”

Cook said in a statement she was pleased.

“Today’s ruling affirms a principle that has underpinned sound economic stewardship for generations: that the Federal Reserve must make all its policy decisions guided by evidence and independent judgment, free from political interference,” Cook said. “This bedrock principle has guided the Federal Reserve since its founding.”

• The Supreme Court’s major cases during the 2025-26 term
• Supreme Court justices turn children’s books into big paydays
• There are no Supreme Court vacancies, but some judges are acting like there might be

It’s not easy to parody Alex Jones, but that’s not stopping the Onion from trying.

The right-wing conspiracy theorist behind Infowars, Jones has spent years promoting stranger-than-fiction ideas, arguing that chemicals in water turn frogs gay, the U.S. government deploys “weather weapons” against its own citizens, and that yogurt maker Chobani imports “migrant rapists.” (Chobani sued for defamation, and Jones apologized upon settling the lawsuit.)

Days after a gunman killed 20 students and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Jones falsely claimed the massacre was staged.

The insidious lie cost him dearly: Jones was ordered to pay roughly $1.5 billion to the families of the victims in a landmark defamation case forcing him to declare bankruptcy.

The satirical news site the Onion is trying to capitalize on the rare opportunity. For Ben Collins, CEO of the Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, the idea to buy Jones’s signature site began as a bit.

On the social media site Bluesky, he saw a reposted newspaper ad marketing the Infowars assets.

“I thought, ‘huh, this would be the funniest thing of all time if we pulled this off,’” he said. “It was, and is, but it’s also become the world’s biggest pain in the ass.”

Since 2024, the Onion has been locked in a legal battle to take over Infowars and transform it into a parody site. Infowars assets are still largely tied up in bankruptcy court, preventing the Onion from absorbing the URL. Still, it’s moving forward with launching its site on Thursday, which will live at theonion.info.

“There is a whole world of like grifters and weirdos who have not been made fun of, and have taken over like the United States,” said Collins. “We need to make fun of this more efficiently, and we need professionals to do it, and what better way to do it than to do a hostile takeover of where it all started.”

As a reporter at NBC, Collins covered a unique beat in his prior life: “disinformation, extremism, and the internet.” He even wrote about Jones’s defamation trial.

Now, he’s left the confines of a real news organization to run a fake one.

Collins enlisted comedian Tim Heidecker, best known as one half of the comedy duo Tim and Eric, as the creative director of this parodic Infowars. He’s also the face of it, performing as a caricature of Jones — complete with his signature rasp, cadence, and penchant for selling questionable nutritional supplements.

Jones did not respond to a request for comment.

The Onion has faced roadblocks to taking over Infowars: In 2024, a judge prevented the Onion from buying Infowars at a bankruptcy auction. Instead, its assets were transferred to a court-appointed receiver. So the Onion struck a licensing deal with the receiver to pay $81,000 a month for the Infowars.com domain and brand. But in April, a Texas appeals court halted any transfer of Infowars assets, again thwarting the Onion.

Collins said he never expected the legal proceedings to take this long: “We thought it was going to be like Storage Wars, and it wound up being more like a dream that you have when you’ve taken too much NyQuil.”

A version of the site viewable before launch featured a video of Heidecker addressing viewers as “infowarriors,” mimicking Jones, and taking a fake call from President Donald Trump. The site’s homepage was full of fake ads imploring readers to buy oxygen capsules and another obvious troll of the embattled Jones: “Turn your gold into piss. Liquidate your assets today.”

There’s an extra motivation for Collins: helping the Sandy Hook families.

The Onion has said it’s worked closely with Sandy Hook families and is donating $100,000 to the families through proceeds from the site. The company called the gift “the first of many.”

“No one else was going to get these families money, and he owes them,” Collins said about Jones. “He still owes them 1½ billion dollars, and we want to get them some cash.”

Chris Mattei, a lawyer for the families who sued Jones in Connecticut, said the families appreciate the Onion’s commitment, though he said it’s never been about the finances for them.

“The families we represent actually never cared about money at all,” Mattei said. The verdict let them “prove to the world in an open courtroom that Alex Jones was a fraud” and “demonstrate to the world the type of real-world harm that online misinformation can cause.”

Collins emphasized that he wants the families to be at the heart of this effort — because they’re the ones who have suffered because of Jones’s false claims. “There’s a few sacred things that we really got to protect if we want to have like a society still,” Collins said. “And these [families] are some of them.”

The Trump administration took aim at the separation of church and state Friday, issuing a draft report from the president’s Religious Liberty Commission that says the separation concept is a legal error and that Americans should view religion as an “essential support” and always remember “the Creator who made us and bestows our rights.”

The 224-page report recommended the Justice Department issue guidance to promote “an originalist understanding” of how the Constitution sees the relationship between religion and government. The founders had diverse views about the topic, but recent Supreme Court rulings have suggested a more narrow interpretation of what justices considered constraints on religious freedom.

Friday’s report also said faith-based groups working with the government shouldn’t have to accommodate civil rights laws or anything that conflicts with their religious beliefs; public schools should allow religious displays (it mentioned only the Ten Commandments); and soldiers who refused to be vaccinated and were punished should have their positions restored and be financially compensated. It called for the end to the Johnson Amendment, which bars nonprofits from making political endorsements.

At an Oval Office news conference announcing the report, commission chairperson Dan Patrick, the Republican lieutenant governor of Texas, said the commission recommends that any official — in government, a school, the military, a hospital, etc. — who alleges a violation of church-state separation must in writing “point out exactly where you have violated the Constitution, because you have not, and from this day forward, that phrase should have no power over people of all faiths ever again in America.”

While the phrase “church-state” separation is not in the Constitution, the concept of space between government and religion is in the First Amendment, which calls for no government “establishment of religion.” Americans have disagreed over the meaning of establishment since the founding.

The report was issued at a time when many conservatives are aggressively working to elevate religion — particularly Christianity — into the public square, fueled by Supreme Court decisions saying that such expression is constitutional. Several states have mandated that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public school classrooms, and many are requiring schools to release students for Bible classes during the school day. Last month, the White House hosted a daylong evangelical prayer festival on the Mall for the country’s 250th birthday, featuring commission members and others preaching from the stage.

On Friday, the Texas education board approved a mandatory reading list for more than 5 million public school students in the state that includes Bible passages.

President Donald Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, created last year, is made up of all conservative Christians and one Orthodox Jew, groups who experts say make up a minority of Americans. In February, a coalition of groups representing other religious groups, as well as nonreligious and interfaith Americans, sued the administration over the commission, saying it was put together without the transparency and diversity required of a federal commission.

The Rev. Paul Raushenbush, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and head of the Interfaith Alliance, had applied unsuccessfully to be a member of the commission.

The draft report, he wrote in a statement, “reflects the narrow, Christian nationalist worldview of the illegitimate commission. … A betrayal of the original intention of the promise of religious freedom guaranteed in the First Amendment, the report and the commission behind it fail to represent and uplift the importance of religious diversity and tolerance for all faiths in our country — not just a special, chosen few. The report is a wish list of divisive, unpopular ideas far-right religious groups have pushed for years.”

Raushenbush also noted that while the report expresses concern about anti-Christian bias and antisemitism, it made no similar mention of growing Islamophobia around the country.

The report is a draft, and comments from the public are open until July 12.

The lawsuit against the commission had sought to stop the release of any report until the court ruled on whether the commission was illegally constituted. It also asked the court to mandate any commission recommendations include a disclaimer stating that the report was produced by a body that was not fairly balanced.

Asked about the lack of religious diversity on the commission, a Justice Department spokesperson said the group was a way for Trump to create “opportunities for Americans from all walks of life to share their testimonies, concerns, and recommendations to better support Civil Rights and religious freedom in the United States.”

“The Department of Justice’s mission is to uphold the rule of law and ensure fair and impartial justice for all Americans, which is an endeavor every American should support regardless of their political or religious beliefs,” the Justice Department statement said.

People called to testify before the commission included a worker at an Alaska women’s shelter who turned away a homeless man who later sued for gender discrimination, and foster parents in Vermont who said their religion kept them from affirming children who were undergoing gender transitions — even though the state required foster parents to do so.

Speaking at the White House, commission vice chairperson Ben Carson said Trump was doing more than anyone else in the country for religious liberty.

“Our founding document says that our rights come from our creator and not from government,” he said. “People who try to divorce us from that heritage? Do they realize that that’s our family document? Do they realize that our family just says we are one nation under God?”

Trump noted that he won the overwhelming majority of evangelicals in his elections.

The White House is facing other litigation over its religion-related actions. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, among other advocacy groups, has a total of seven lawsuits.

Some note that Trump’s Justice Department asked other federal agencies for examples of what it called “anti-Christian bias” and sought access to any complaints received as a result. Others note the proselytizing of some agency heads, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.

Immigrants began making plans to sell or rent their homes, secure bank accounts, and figure out thorny issues like child custody arrangements. Business owners started calculating how many days they can continue to employ workers whose legal status is set to expire. And nursing home leaders warned they would have fewer beds to offer if health aides are forced to leave the country.

Panic rippled through communities from Florida to Ohio and beyond in the hours after the Supreme Court cleared the Trump administration Thursday to strip humanitarian protections from Haitians and Syrians — and potentially all 1.3 million immigrants from over a dozen countries who had been previously shielded from deportation.

“The residents will be losing caregivers that they really have become attached to,” said Colin O’Leary, executive director at Laurel Ridge Rehabilitation & Skilled Care Center in Boston. Managers at the facility were racing to figure out how much longer staff members from Haiti with temporary protected status could continue taking care of patients. “That’s a lot for our residents to handle.”

Attorneys said Haitians and Syrians could lose work permits in little more than a month, but the deadline remained unclear because lower court judges must issue orders to implement the decision. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, told reporters Thursday that Haitians and others with temporary protected status should be detained and deported once they lose the benefit.

“If you no longer have status in this country, then you’re supposed to be deported,” Miller said.

Some of those immigrants have lived in the United States for decades and said they feared being sent back to conflict-ridden homelands that they barely know and whose languages some do not speak.

Temporary protected status, a program created in 1990, grants work permits and deportation reprieves to immigrants for up to 18 months if their nations are engulfed in war, natural disasters, or other emergencies. Applicants cannot have serious criminal records and the government can, and has, renewed the protections multiple times.

President Donald Trump and his allies have alleged that the temporary protections have lasted long after the emergencies have passed and have allowed undocumented immigrants and visa overstayers to live and work in the United States.

But the program also has become a political wedge. When he was a senator representing Florida, home to thousands of Haitians, Venezuelans, and others with the protections, Secretary of State Marco Rubio favored the protections.

Approximately 350,000 Haitians and roughly 6,000 Syrians have TPS, but the Supreme Court ruling ultimately could affect immigrants from 17 countries whose citizens were safeguarded under the program when Trump took office. His administration has sought to terminate protections for 13 of those countries.

Harlaine, 38, a registered nurse in Florida, said she hasn’t been to Haiti since she left for the U.S. at age 7 and had never visited because everyone told her it was too dangerous. She spoke on the condition that only her first name be used because she fears being targeted by immigration authorities.

“To tell me to go back to a country that I know nothing of is the sickest and most evil thing I think that somebody could do,” she said.

News of the ruling devastated residents and staff at healthcare and elder care facilities across the country, since a large share of the Haitian immigrant population works in those industries. Nursing homes, labor unions, and governors condemned the decision and called for an emergency resolution. Advocates called the decision one of the largest “de-legalization” efforts in U.S. history.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, characterized the decision as “a mistake” and said it is too dangerous to deport people to Haiti, including the more than 10,000 Haitians living and working legally in his state. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) vowed to fight the ruling, even as the path to challenging it is unclear.

“I’m telling you it’s going to cripple our healthcare system,” Hochul told reporters. “Who’s going to show up tomorrow to take care of Grandma? Who’s doing that? Who’s stepping up?”

Miami Jewish Health, a senior living community and healthcare provider in Florida, cut 120 nursing home beds a few months ago, in part due to staffing issues, including those stemming from the pending cancellation of TPS for Haitians. About 40 healthcare employees and contracted food and housekeeping workers were affected by the Supreme Court ruling, said Jason Pincus, a vice president at the center.

Goodwin Living, a senior living nonprofit that serves thousands of older adults in Northern Virginia and Washington, D.C., braced for staff cuts, and at Laurel Ridge Rehabilitation & Skilled Care Center in Boston, managers prepared for having to say goodbye to dietary aides and certified nursing assistants who care for about 115 elderly residents.

Rita Siebenaler, a resident of Goodwin House Bailey’s Crossroads in Virginia, called the decision “sad, dreadful, and very upsetting for the seniors that I know.”

“We are now threatened with the loss of valuable, trained, vetted, very, very reliable caretakers,” she said.

The decision is expected to hit hard in Springfield, Ohio, where about one in four residents is Haitian. Trump falsely claimed on the 2024 campaign trail that Haitian immigrants there were eating cats and dogs. The loss of hardworking employees, homeowners, and renters who became trusted members of the community will be painful, residents said.

Ross McGregor, a fifth-generation Springfield resident and the president of a heavy machinery factory in town, has employed dozens of Haitians with temporary protections in the past, and worried that he will not be able to find workers in the future.

“If anything, right now our business is starting to pick up and grow,” said McGregor, 61. “I might have trouble hiring because the workforce is already challenging in Springfield.”

Harlaine, the nurse from Florida, obtained temporary protected status after Haiti’s catastrophic earthquake in 2010. She said she paid her way through college to earn a bachelor’s degree, taking years longer than most students to finish because she had to pay for it herself. She went on to work in emergency rooms, including during the deadly COVID pandemic that killed her sister.

Now she is facing the loss of her life in the U.S. She lives with her elderly mother, a retired factory worker who also has the temporary status, and her 17-month-old son, who is a U.S. citizen. Her mother paid off the home with her wages, she said.

Starting over in Haiti, she said, is unimaginable.

“You’re basically sending me to stick out like a sore thumb,” she said. “I barely know the language. That’s crazy.”

Fissures have emerged in recent weeks among some Republicans over Trump’s immigration enforcement policies.

Some House Republicans broke ranks in April to help Democrats pass legislation that would have extended Haitians’ TPS protections through April 2029. This month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business leaders pressured Trump to back off a plan to require green-card applicants to leave the United States for processing, fearing they’d get stuck abroad and it would harm their workforces.

Advocates for immigrants say it is inhumane to deport so many residents to struggling countries. Some are trying to find alternate ways to stay legally, but attorneys say they could be detained pending an asylum hearing if they lose TPS.

“People haven’t been here in this country in some artificial limbo like in a waiting room. People have married, people have had children, people who have started businesses, people have made this country their home,” said Jessica Bansal, an attorney involved in the case. “Are half a million people going to be torn from their communities in 32 days? Or will Congress and the people do something to stop it?”

Mustafa Doe, a Syrian immigrant in his 20s with TPS, was among the plaintiffs named using a pseudonym in the case the Supreme Court decided Thursday. In an interview, he said he fears persecution in his homeland because he is gay and not a practicing Muslim. He works for a Fortune 500 company in New York, helping manage its philanthropic programs. But he said he also recently bought a co-op and sits on the board, and now fears he will have to sell it.

He is among the younger residents in a building of older residents who rely on him to help lug heavy bags of groceries upstairs and even paint the building.

“It is like a family,” he said.

His parents are legal U.S. residents and most of his relatives are scattered across the U.S. Nobody is left in Syria to receive him if he is forced to go back. He said he came to America with a student visa in 2021 to attend college.

“There’s no one in Syria,” he said. “It’s literally just going to be me.”