A Troubling Milestone: Most Supreme Court Rulings Are Secretive Votes With Little Justification

For the first time, the Supreme Court issued more rulings through its "shadow docket" than through its traditional merits docket. These shadow docket decisions, often unsigned and lacking justification, are fast-tracked and bypass oral arguments and extensive briefings. This shift has allowed the Trump administration to implement policies blocked by lower courts with little explanation. Scholars note this trend, which began around 2016, has led to consequential decisions that contradict precedent and empower the executive branch. The increased use of the shadow docket, particularly by the Trump administration, has raised concerns about transparency and the court's credibility.

The US Supreme Court has granted presidents the power to fire leaders of independent agencies, overturning 90 years of precedent. This decision, in the case *Trump v. Slaughter*, was celebrated by President Trump but criticized by labor and consumer advocacy groups who warned of its impact on democracy. In other rulings, the Court sided against Republicans and the Trump administration, allowing mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day to be counted in over a dozen states. The Court also ruled that law enforcement's use of smartphone location data requires privacy protections under the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the Supreme Court declined to review Donald Trump's appeal of a New York jury's verdict finding him liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll.

The US Supreme Court issued several consequential rulings on June 29, 2026, impacting President Donald Trump. In a 6-3 decision, the court expanded presidential executive powers by overturning a precedent that protected leaders of independent government agencies from at-will removal, allowing Trump to fire FTC member Rebecca Slaughter without cause. However, in a 5-4 decision, the court preserved the Federal Reserve's independence by blocking Trump's attempt to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, citing procedural protections. The court also upheld a state law allowing mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted, a decision that went against Trump. These rulings addressed issues of executive authority, voting rights, and the independence of financial institutions.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the President can fire leaders of independent agencies, overturning 90 years of precedent. The 6-3 decision in *Trump v. Slaughter* centered on the White House's 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter. Slaughter had sued, arguing she was fired without cause, and a lower court initially ruled in her favor. The Supreme Court's decision effectively reverses the 1935 *Humphrey's Executor v. United States* ruling, which had limited presidential removal power over independent agency heads. Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan dissented, arguing the ruling undermines the Constitution and agency independence.

The US Supreme Court has blocked President Trump's attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the administration did not provide Cook with sufficient due process to contest her removal. This decision sends the case back to lower courts, where the administration must prove its allegations of mortgage fraud if it wishes to proceed with the firing, and Cook will have an opportunity to challenge the accusations. The article states that a president can only remove Federal Reserve governors "for cause," a provision intended to shield the bank from political pressure. Trump had announced his plan to remove Cook on social media, citing claims of mortgage form discrepancies.

The US Supreme Court has rejected President Donald Trump's attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. In a 5-4 ruling on Monday, the court upheld the central bank's independence, preventing the first presidential removal of a Fed official since the institution's creation in 1913. This decision marks a significant challenge to presidential power, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the three liberal justices in the majority. The ruling preserves the established norms surrounding the Federal Reserve's autonomy.