The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) recently delivered two consecutive rulings on President Donald Trump’s power. The court rejected Trump’s effort to abolish birthright citizenship, but it helped the president expand his control over independent executive agencies.

These two rulings conclude the 2025-2026 judicial term, featuring cases centered on a president who consistently challenges legal limits and has even criticized SCOTUS. Over the past year, Trump has secured victories that could expand White House power, but he has also faced defeats in several significant cases.

These developments indicate that the 9 Supreme Court justices are willing to grant Trump more authority in managing the executive apparatus, while still maintaining limits they deem to be rooted in the constitution or mandated by Congress.

"The rulings also help SCOTUS demonstrate its independence, showing that it is not a group of politicians wearing judicial robes", Elizabeth Price Foley, a constitutional litigation lawyer, told the Wall Street Journal.

US President Donald Trump in Washington on 24/6. Photo: AFP

Uncrossable boundaries

Eliminating birthright citizenship was one of President Trump's prominent immigration commitments upon his return to the White House. He signed an executive order stating that the federal government would not issue passports, certificates of nationality, or other documents to children born in the US whose mothers were illegally or temporarily in the country, and whose fathers were not US citizens or permanent residents.

Lower courts blocked the order, arguing that almost everyone born on US territory is a US citizen under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. A majority of Supreme Court justices agreed with this view on 30/6.

Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the six conservative-leaning justices, stated there was "very little basis" to support the White House's "deeply revisionist interpretation." The ruling means a president cannot use an executive order to alter an understanding of the 14th Amendment that has been maintained for over a century.

President Trump also failed to achieve his goal of using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose widespread tariffs without congressional approval. He had invoked this act when applying retaliatory tariffs against various trading partners early in his second term.

This tariff policy sparked controversy within the US, leading to criticism. Opponents also used IEEPA to sue the Trump administration.

In its February ruling, three conservative and three liberal justices concluded that IEEPA does not grant the president the authority to impose a global tariff program, as the White House had argued. However, SCOTUS left open the possibility that the president could use other legal bases to adjust trade policy.

Another boundary protected by SCOTUS is the independence of the Federal Reserve (Fed). In 8/2025, President Trump announced the unprecedented dismissal of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, a move unheard of in over 100 years. The White House had previously and repeatedly criticized the Fed for not lowering interest rates.

However, SCOTUS allowed her to remain in office while the lawsuit was resolved, signaling that the Fed maintains a special position within the system of federal agencies.

The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., US, on 25/6. Photo: AFP

Expanded powers

In a ruling announced on 29/6, SCOTUS reversed a precedent existing since 1935, granting Trump more power to remove leaders of independent agencies. This ruling stemmed from a lawsuit initiated after Trump dismissed Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission.

Previous laws stipulated that a president could only remove leaders of independent agencies for just cause, such as committing a crime or failing to perform duties, thus shielding them from political pressure. The new ruling concluded that those regulations had curtailed the president's executive power.

However, SCOTUS once again clarified that the Fed is a distinct case, thereby maintaining protection for the Fed’s leadership.

This victory also clearly reflects the legal view many conservative scholars have pursued for years: executive power should be centralized in the president rather than dispersed among independent institutions.

This trend has also appeared in several other recent Supreme Court rulings.

In immigration, the court largely sided with the Trump administration, allowing the termination of deportation protection for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, tightening the asylum application process, and expanding border patrol authority in some cases.

According to AP, these decisions help Trump fulfill his commitment to conducting a large-scale deportation campaign, one of his top priorities after returning to the White House.

Election rulings continue to advance goals pursued by conservatives for years.

In April, SCOTUS narrowed the scope of the 1965 Voting Rights Act by raising standards for redistricting lawsuits. This ruling makes it difficult for minority voter groups to challenge redistricting maps without proving intentional racial discrimination.

The court also overturned limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, arguing that a regulation existing for over half a century had restricted constitutionally protected free speech.

On social issues, the court upheld Idaho and West Virginia regulations banning transgender athletes from competing in public school female sports teams, and further expanded the scope of gun ownership rights.

The 9 US Supreme Court justices in a group photo in 10/2022. Photo: Reuters

Before the end of its judicial term, SCOTUS also accepted more cases with the potential to further shape the balance of power among the branches of government, including the constitutionality of a ban on AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles, regulations requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote, and issues related to climate change.

The 9 SCOTUS justices began their summer recess on 1/7 and will return to Washington to work in October, commencing a new judicial term.

Nhu Tam (According to WSJ, AP, Reuters)