Summary: Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor precedent Trump v. Slaughter expands presidential removal power FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter's firing upheld The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hand Donald Trump broad authority to fire regulatory agency heads caps off a decades-long conservative push to strengthen the president's grip on key levers of government power. The June 29 6-3 ruling, powered by the court's conservatives, determined that a president can remove agency officials who wield executive power, such as Democratic Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, whose firing was upheld despite removal protections provided in law by Congress. The court, however, signaled that the decision should not be seen as undermining the Federal Reserve's independence. The justices described the U.S. central bank as possessing a unique historical tradition, and in a separate case on Monday refused to let Trump fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Legal experts said the FTC ruling dealt a crippling blow to the so-called "administrative state." That refers to the network of federal agencies that regulate key aspects of American life and business, from finance to air traffic safety to labor relations, and had been largely insulated from direct presidential control. The decision is also seen as the high-water mark for the "unitary executive" theory, a conservative legal doctrine popularized during the presidency of Republican Ronald Reagan in the 1980s that had made steady inroads with like-minded justices. That theory sees the president as having sole authority over the U.S. government's executive branch, including the power to fire and replace heads of federal agencies at will. The court bolstered presidential power at a time when Trump has tested the limits of his authority in both domestic and foreign affairs. 'NEARLY A NULLITY' University of North Carolina School of Law professor Michael Gerhardt said Monday's FTC ruling marked "the most significant decision expanding presidential power in decades." "This is definitely the biggest win yet for the unitary theory of the executive," Gerhardt said, calling it "the culmination of years of planning by conservative groups." "The administrative state," Gerhardt added, "just shrank to nearly a nullity." According to John Yoo, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, the ruling gives the president control over an administrative state that was primarily created and expanded by Democratic former Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Barack Obama. "The presidency just gained the most constitutional power, at any one time, in Slaughter than in any other single case in Supreme Court history," Yoo said, referring to the case by its name, Trump v. Slaughter. "There is no more independent administrative state." Slaughter, appointed by Democratic former ⁠President Joe Biden, was one of two Democratic FTC commissioners who Trump moved to fire in March 2025 from the consumer protection and antitrust agency. Slaughter's term was due to run until 2029. In a legal challenge to her removal, Slaughter cited a 1914 law that allowed a president to remove FTC commissioners only for cause — such as inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office — but not for policy differences. Similar protections have covered officials at more than two dozen other independent agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. A PRECEDENT OVERTURNED Lower courts that reviewed Slaughter's claim upheld these tenure protections for FTC members under a 1935 Supreme Court decision in a case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States that recognized congressional authority to protect leaders of certain regulatory agencies from presidential removal at will. The court in the Humphrey's Executor decision rebuffed Roosevelt's attempt to fire an FTC member over policy differences despite the tenure protections given by Congress. In that decision, the court said restricting a president's removal of commissioners was lawful because the FTC performed tasks more closely resembling legislative and judicial functions rather than those belonging squarely to the executive branch, headed by the president. The Trump administration had argued that the modern FTC grew ⁠to wield substantial executive power in the decades since the Humphrey's Executor decision, draining that ruling of its force. The court in Monday's decision agreed, overruling Humphrey's Executor. The court's three liberal justices dissented. The Supreme Court in recent decades had narrowed the reach of Humphrey's Executor but stopped short of overturning it. In a 2020 ruling, it said the Constitution's Article II gives the president the general power to remove heads of agencies at will but that the 1935 precedent had carved out an exception that allowed for-cause removal protections for certain multi-member, expert agencies. Christine Chabot, a professor at Marquette University Law School in Wisconsin, said, "The court's decision to overrule Humphrey's Executor is the biggest win to date for the 'unitary executive' theory." Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley Law School, said he expects Monday's ruling overruling Humphrey's will lead to further politicization of federal regulatory agencies that Congress sought to entrust to nonpartisan experts. "I think agency independence is now gone," Chemerinsky said. "Agencies, like cabinet departments, will need to do what the president wants." The likely outcome will be broader swings in regulatory policy when the presidential administration of one political party replaces the other party. University of Illinois Chicago law professor Steve Schwinn, who criticized the ruling, said he expects it will result in the "hyper-politicization of previously independent federal agencies." "I fear that we as a people won't fully appreciate the impacts for years or decades," Schwinn said. Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham

Summary: US Supreme Court agreed to hear Rise Brewing appeal 2nd Circuit overturned initial injunction against Pepsi Rise Brewing alleges trademark infringement over 'Rise' name   The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on June 29 to hear a bid by canned-coffee maker Rise Brewing to hold PepsiCo liable for alleged trademark infringement concerning Pepsi's morning energy drink "Mtn Dew Rise." The justices took up Rise's appeal of a lower court's ruling rejecting the company's claim that the product name "Mtn Dew Rise" infringes its trademarks and creates customer confusion with its coffee brand. The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case during its next term, which begins in October. Pepsi launched Mtn Dew Rise, a fruit-flavored energy drink marketed to morning drinkers, in 2021. Stamford, Connecticut-based Rise sued Pepsi later that year, alleging trademark infringement. Rise sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages and a court order blocking Pepsi from using the "Rise" name. It argued that Pepsi, which also distributes Starbucks coffee drinks, was trying to "destroy a leading competitor" by flooding the market with a similarly named product. Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield granted Rise's request to temporarily block Pepsi's use of the "Mtn Dew Rise" name, citing evidence that it posed an "existential threat" to Rise's business. Pepsi renamed its drink "Mtn Dew Energy" after the ruling before discontinuing it altogether in 2024. The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Schofield's order in 2022. Pepsi convinced Schofield to throw out the case in 2023 in light of the appeals court's decision. The judge said Rise's trademark rights were weak because of the "strong logical associations between 'Rise' and coffee," and agreed with the 2nd Circuit's finding that the differences in the drinks' branding were "far more notable than the similarities." The 2nd Circuit affirmed that ruling in 2024. Rise told the Supreme Court in a filing that the strength of its trademarks was a factual question that should not have been decided by a judge, and that other federal appeals courts that have considered the issue have left that matter to juries to decide. Pepsi responded in a filing that the case was a "run-of-the-mill trademark dispute," and that Rise's argument implicated no split among federal appeals courts and "lacks sufficient importance" to warrant Supreme Court intervention. President Donald Trump's administration urged the Supreme Court not to hear Rise's appeal. Reporting by Blake Brittain; Editing by Will Dunham

Summary: Supreme Court to rule on firing of Fed and FTC officials Court considers challenge to Mississippi mail-in ballot grace period Justices review transgender athlete bans in Idaho and West Virginia The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to wrap up its current term in the coming days, with several major cases yet to be decided, including three involving Donald Trump's far-reaching assertion of presidential powers, two important election-related cases and one involving a crackdown by states on transgender athletes. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has seven disputes still to be resolved, and has set June 29 as its next day to issue rulings. Supreme Court terms begin in October and typically wrap up around the end of June, sometimes spilling over into early July. The Trump cases center on his moves last year to fire a member of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board of Governors and a member of the Federal Trade Commission, and his executive order last year to limit birthright citizenship — three actions that test the boundaries of presidential powers. The court gave the Republican president victories in two immigration-related cases on Thursday, and has backed him in multiple emergency rulings since he returned to office last year, allowing policies impeded by lower courts to take effect while legal challenges proceeded. The court, however, handed him a significant loss in February when it rejected his sweeping tariffs issued under a law meant for use in national emergencies. FIRING FEDERAL OFFICIALS The justices signaled skepticism during arguments in January toward Trump's bid to fire the Fed's Lisa Cook, a move that threatened the central bank's independence. No other president has tried to fire a Fed official since its founding in 1913. In creating the Fed, Congress passed a law that included provisions meant to insulate it from political interference, requiring governors to be removed by a president only "for cause." The statute does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal. Trump cited unsubstantiated mortgage fraud allegations — denied by Cook — to justify the firing. Cook, who has remained in the post while the case plays out, called the allegations a pretext to oust her over monetary policy differences. The conservative justices during arguments in December signaled they would uphold Trump's firing of Democratic Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter over policy differences. Lower courts ruled Trump exceeded his authority. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the administration, urged the justices to overturn a Supreme Court precedent in a 1935 case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States that has constrained presidential power by protecting the heads of certain independent agencies from removal. The court in recent decades has narrowed the precedent's reach but stopped short of overturning it. The conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the administration's arguments that tenure protections given by Congress to the heads of ⁠independent agencies encroach on presidential powers under the U.S. Constitution. The court last year let Trump remove Slaughter while the case proceeded. ELECTION-RELATED CASES Two election-related decisions are due as the November midterm elections loom, with Republicans seeking to retain control of Congress. The conservative justices signaled skepticism during arguments in March toward a Mississippi law challenged by Republicans that permits a five-day grace period for mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted. That case could lead to stricter voting rules around the country. The administration argued in favor of the challenge. Mississippi's law permits mail-in ballots sent by eligible voters to be counted if they ​were postmarked on or before Election Day but received up to five business days after a federal election. A lower court ruled against the law. Trump, who has made false claims about widespread fraud in U.S. elections, issued an executive order in March to restrict mail-in ballots nationwide, but a federal judge in Boston on ​Thursday blocked its implementation. The court heard arguments in December in a Republican-led bid to strike down federal limits on spending by political parties in coordination with candidates in a case involving Vice President JD Vance. Some of the conservative justices appeared sympathetic toward the challenge. The court's liberal members seemed inclined to preserve the restrictions. The dispute centers on whether these limits violate the Constitution's First Amendment ​protection against government abridgment of freedom of speech. A lower court upheld the restrictions. TRANSGENDER ATHLETES The court heard arguments in January over the legality of laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools including universities. The conservative justices appeared ready to uphold the laws. The states said the measures preserve fair competition for women and girls. Critics see them as part of wider efforts to restrict the rights of transgender Americans. 'GEOFENCE' WARRANTS The court heard arguments in April in a case from Virginia involving whether law enforcement's use of a "geofence" warrant to identify potential suspects based on data from cellphones near crime scenes ​violates the Constitution's Fourth Amendment bar on unreasonable searches. (Reporting by Will Dunham, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien)