- The Supreme Court on Monday issued rulings in cases involving President Donald Trump's ability to fire officials at the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission.
- In one, justices sided with Fed Governor Lisa Cook. Financial experts said it is good news for consumers and the U.S. economy — though the court left open the possibility for additional legal action.
- In another case, the court sided with Trump. There are implications for agencies including the FTC, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which have typically been independent, bipartisan regulators with consumer protection mandates.
Two highly anticipated Supreme Court rulings on Monday may have far-reaching effects for consumers — both positive and negative, according to financial experts.
In one ruling, Supreme Court justices
preserved Federal Reserve's independence from political influence — for now, at least — which experts said was a win for consumers and the U.S. economy.
The other decision, which
gave presidents the power to fire members of other federal commissions like the Federal Trade Commission, could lead to more volatile policymaking and regulatory whiplash for consumers and businesses, even under future presidential administrations, they said.
The high court, in a 5-4
ruling, sided with Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who President Donald Trump tried to fire in August 2025.
In an August 2025 letter to Cook, Trump said he had "
reason to believe" the Fed governor, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, had committed mortgage fraud. Cook said the attempted removal wasn't "for cause," and that she didn't receive due process.
The case's outcome had major implications for the central bank's independence and the president's ability to install loyalists who could sway monetary policy based on political whims, experts said.
The ruling effectively preserves the status quo — to the benefit of consumers and the U.S. economy, they said.
"We view the Cook decision as restricting the ability of the President to remove Federal Reserve governors," Jaret Seiberg, financial policy analyst at TD Cowen, wrote in a note Monday. "That should reinforce the independence of the central bank and make it less likely that the President tries to fire other governors in order to put his supporters on the board."
Federal Reserve officials vote on interest rate policy, striving to keep inflation and the labor market in balance.
Politicians would generally prefer lower interest rates in the short term to juice the economy, reduce unemployment and lower borrowing costs in the lead up to an election, said David Wessel, senior fellow and director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution, a think tank.
However, those impacts would likely prove temporary: Sustained, artificially low interest rates would likely mean an overheating economy and higher inflation in the medium and longer term, and a potentially weaker economy, experts said.
This is why the Fed's independence — and that of central banks in other advanced economies — is so important, experts said.
While it would take time to see the negative effects of artificially low rates, it would be "a much darker scenario" compared to one in which the Fed is independent, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's.
He added that those ill effects would have come at a time when the U.S. is already struggling with an affordability problem and high inflation.
The Supreme Court ruled that Trump didn't meet the legal threshold to fire Cook for cause.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said accepting Trump's position "would in effect transform the Federal Reserve's for-cause protection into at-will employment — an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation's tradition of central banking protected from political interference."
The Founding Fathers, Roberts wrote, knew from experience the "calamities" that could result from a Fed influenced by politics.
"Not only the fact of independence but also the appearance of independence is key to the Federal Reserve's design," he wrote.
The Supreme Court's ruling isn't necessarily the last word on Cook's removal.
The majority said that Cook is entitled to some explanation of the evidence against her, and an ability to respond to the allegations.
"Only after Cook has had the opportunity to respond to the charges made against her may a final decision be made," Roberts wrote. "And only then can the courts assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges."
"What that means is that the case is not over," Seiberg wrote. "The President could still initiate a process to remove Cook in which he presents her with evidence to support a for-cause removal."
When asked for comment on the Supreme Court case and the president's plans, the White House pointed to a social media post Trump issued after the ruling Monday.
In that
post, the president signaled that his administration "will take appropriate action immediately."
Meanwhile, in a separate 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court
gave Trump and future presidents the power to remove members of independent federal agencies that carry out functions under the executive branch of government.
In
March 2025, shortly after Trump began his second term, he fired the Federal Trade Commission's two Democratic appointees, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya.
Trump didn't identify a cause for the dismissal, but said their service was "inconsistent with [his] Administration's priorities," according to the Supreme Court's majority option, which Roberts also wrote.
The high court sided with Trump, saying the FTC's for-cause removal provision is inconsistent with the Constitution's separation of powers.
The ruling has implications for all independent federal agencies, which typically have a roster of bipartisan commissioners, experts said. In addition to the FTC, they include the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, they said.
"The FTC opinion matters for financial regulation," Seiberg wrote. "The justices have given future Presidents the power to fire members of independent agencies."
Trump in a social media
post Monday said the Supreme Court ruling was a "BIG WIN" and "one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers."
He said in a separate
post that the ruling "greatly" increased presidential power "at a time when it is most needed."
However, other observers said the outcome would be negative for consumers.
The Supreme Court undercut regulators that have been "crucial to protecting the rights of workers; protecting consumers from unsafe products and unreasonable business practices, [and] policing financial markets and investor protection," among other functions, wrote Rachel Weintraub, executive director of the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.
Consumers and businesses are also likely to see rapid changes in policy from administration to administration, especially if they're from a different political party, experts said.
"I think what we're going to see on all these regulatory agencies is a pendulum swing," said Wessel, of the the Brookings Institution.
"If you think that the consumers who use Meta and the small business owners who sell on Amazon will be made better by this decision, then I am Dora the Explorer," Alvaro Bedoya, one of the two former FTC commissioners fired by Trump, said on a press call Monday morning.
"This is just going to be a terrible result for consumers, and they're the ones who are going to have to pay for all of this," Bedoya said.<small>Source: CNBC</small>
Business
Supreme Court rulings on Fed, FTC: What they mean for consumers
CNBC
June 29, 2026
1 views
Advertisement
How did this make you feel?
