The U.S. Supreme Court delivered contradictory rulings on presidential power to remove federal agency heads, allowing President Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission leaders while blocking his attempt to dismiss a Federal Reserve governor. The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation released a review this term analyzing several major decisions that will reshape law and policy in Michigan and nationwide. The report examines four cases spanning property rights, executive authority, and digital privacy protections.
In Trump v. Slaughter, the court ruled 6-3 that the president can fire FTC commissioners despite statutory "for cause" protections, overturning Depression-era precedent that had shielded independent agency heads from removal. The decision embraced what's called the unitary executive theory, which holds that because all administrative agencies fall under the executive branch, the president can dismiss any agency leader at will. By contrast, the court ruled 5-4 in Trump v. Cook that Federal Reserve governors retain protection from presidential firing, citing the central bank's "unique historical character" as justification for an exception. The FTC case involved Trump's January 2025 firing of Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, while the Federal Reserve dispute centered on Trump's August 2025 attempt to remove Governor Lisa Cook over alleged mortgage fraud.
According to the Mackinac Center report, the Slaughter decision "could have far broader implications for other federal agencies with similar for-cause removal protections for their leaders," including the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. The report states that concurring and dissenting opinions raised questions about whether Congress would have established independent agencies if lawmakers had known presidents could freely dismiss their leadership. In the Cook case, the court found that preserving the Federal Reserve's political independence requires governors to receive certain procedural rights before removal. The report notes this creates a narrow exception based on historical tradition that may allow other agency heads to gain similar protections if they can demonstrate comparable independence from executive control.
On property rights, the court unanimously rejected a Michigan family's claim to full market value after Isabella County foreclosed on their home over $2,241.93 in disputed taxes. The county sold the Pungs' house—assessed at $195,000—for $76,000 at auction and returned roughly $74,000 in surplus equity, but the family argued they deserved compensation matching fair market value. The justices held that returning surplus proceeds from a fairly conducted tax sale satisfies Fifth Amendment just compensation requirements, though they sent the case back to determine whether Isabella County's auction process was fair. The Mackinac Center warns this ruling "shows how easily Michigan homeowners can lose substantial property value over relatively small tax disputes."
In Chatrie v. United States, the court ruled 6-3 that police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they obtain bulk cellphone location data from Google, even when anonymized. Virginia police had secured a warrant for location history from all phones within 150 meters of a robbed credit union, eventually identifying and charging Okello Chatrie. The justices held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in cellphone location information, strengthening privacy protections while still permitting such data collection when supported by probable cause. The report projects this decision "could significantly shape how much privacy Americans have in their daily movements and how broadly law enforcement can use powerful digital surveillance tools," requiring police to meet higher standards before accessing location data that can reveal the whereabouts of thousands of innocent people never suspected of crimes.