In a major expansion of presidential authority, the Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for President Trump to fire independent government regulators despite federal laws meant to protect their jobs. But the justices carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve, preventing the president from immediately removing one governor, Lisa D. Cook, from the powerful central bank.<\/p>\n
The court\u2019s 6-to-3 ruling to broadly allow the firings, with the three liberal justices dissenting, represented a significant shift in power from Congress to the president, and could drastically change the federal government\u2019s structure by giving the president more control over independent agencies.<\/p>\n
The case tested whether Mr. Trump could oust Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, simply because she did not align with his agenda, despite a law that says the president can remove commissioners only for \u201cinefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.\u201d<\/p>\n
But the decision has implications for more than two dozen agencies \u2014 including those charged with protecting consumers, workers, the environment and nuclear safety \u2014 that have traditionally been insulated from presidential control.<\/p>\n
In a social media post, Mr. Trump celebrated what he called a \u201cBIG WIN,\u201d adding that it was a \u201cHistoric and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a separate decision, however, the court voted 5 to 4 to block the president from ousting Ms. Cook.<\/p>\n
While the ruling decided a narrow procedural question, the majority opinion pointed to the uniquely independent nature of the central bank.<\/p>\n
Former top Fed and Treasury officials and Ms. Cook\u2019s legal team had warned the Supreme Court that allowing Mr. Trump to remove her while litigation was underway would spur economic turmoil and undermine the longstanding autonomy of the central bank.<\/p>\n
Unlike with other regulators, Mr. Trump had accepted that a president could only fire Fed governors for cause. He had accused Ms. Cook of engaging in mortgage fraud, and said he could dismiss her on those grounds. The justices, however, found that Ms. Cook had not been given an opportunity to refute those unproven allegations.<\/p>\n
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority opinions in both cases on Monday, rejected what he described as the administration\u2019s \u201chalfhearted\u201d contention that Ms. Cook had received a fair or due process when the president posted about her removal on social media.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat will not do,\u201d wrote the chief justice, who was joined by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices. \u201cAt minimum, Cook was entitled to some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ms. Cook said in a statement Monday that the president\u2019s move to fire her was \u201can attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people.\u201d<\/p>\n
But the court\u2019s ruling in her favor was limited. The justices allowed her to remain on the job while permitting Mr. Trump to continue to seek her removal as long as Ms. Cook had an opportunity to respond to the charges against her. At that point, courts could \u201cassess the validity and sufficiency of such charges,\u201d the chief justice wrote.<\/p>\n
The president vowed in a social media post to press ahead with his efforts to oust Ms. Cook.<\/p>\n
The court distinguished between what it called the \u201cunique role\u201d of the Federal Reserve and other types of government agencies, where the court\u2019s majority said the president needed the flexibility to remove officials whose views did not align with the administration\u2019s.<\/p>\n
In the F.T.C. case, the justices cast aside a 90-year precedent that had prevented presidents from removing independent regulators without cause and solely over policy disagreements.<\/p>\n
A majority of the justices have long been sympathetic to the argument the Trump administration was making that the Constitution vests all executive power in the president, and that he or she must be able to control everything the executive branch does.<\/p>\n
Even before Mr. Trump returned to the White House, the Supreme Court\u2019s conservative majority had chipped away at Congress\u2019s power<\/a> to constrain a president\u2019s authority to remove some independent regulators, finding that some laws restricting the president from ousting independent officials without cause were unconstitutional.<\/p>\n