Justice denied?
The Supreme Court’s Five Most Damaging Decisions …
The Supreme Court this week cleared the way for President Donald J. Trump to fire the sole remaining Democrat on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), cementing the 47th president’s push to exert unprecedented control over the federal bureaucracy.
Earlier this year, the justices allowed the President to fire Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
What These Cases Mean: Trump, the Fed, and the Power to Remove
As of September 2025, President Trump has also attempted to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook, citing alleged misrepresentations in mortgage documents regarding her primary residence.
The legal fight proceeded through the district court and the D.C. Circuit, both of which temporarily blocked her removal, finding that the alleged misconduct did not meet the “for cause” standard required by the congressionally authorized Federal Reserve Act. The statute gives legally protected tenure to Fed governors, meaning the president cannot (or should not be able to) fire them at will but only for cause, such as “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
This dispute is now on track to reach the Supreme Court or be decided by it. The broader constitutional issue is whether presidents have the power to override these statutory protections and remove Fed governors without cause. Such a decision could fundamentally weaken the legal insulation Congress embedded in the Fed’s structure.
Why the Fed Was Designed to Be Independent
The Federal Reserve was created by Congress in 1913, via the Federal Reserve Act, in response to recurring financial panics in the market, bank runs, and instability in the national monetary system.
Congress intended for the central bank to act as a stabilizing force that could make long-term technical decisions in monetary policy, particularly in setting interest rates, regulating banks, and managing credit, without being swayed by short-term political pressures.
Among key features that strengthen this independence are:
Fixed, staggered terms for Governors of the Board so that no single president can replace the entire Board quickly.
“For cause” removal protections under the Federal Reserve Act, meaning governors can be removed only for a specific, legally justifiable reason, not at whim.
Self-funding or revenue derived from its operations rather than direct Congressional appropriations for policy decisions, which reduced leverage by spending threats.
Mandated dual, or multiple objectives set by Congress, namely, maximum employment and price stability, rather than a President’s political agenda.
Implications & Consequences if Independence Erodes
If the Supreme Court, or a future ruling, allows a President to remove Fed governors at will, or significantly loosens the “for cause” requirement, the impacts could be profound:
Monetary policy politicization: Decisions on interest rates, inflation control, and financial regulation risk becoming tools for short-term political gain, such as easing before elections, shifting rate policy to favor specific sectors, and more.
Market instability: Investors and markets value predictability. Suppose the Fed is perceived to be under political influence, especially in crucial moments such as crisis periods. In that case, confidence may erode, leading to higher risk premiums, increased volatility, and inflationary expectations.
Erosion of checks and balances: The Fed is one of the few federal institutions explicitly carved out to be insulated from executive branch influence. Weakening that insulation shifts power toward the presidency at the expense of a stabilizing technocratic or quasi-independent institution. That could easily cascade so that other “independent” agencies may be vulnerable or less trusted
Impact on vulnerable citizens: Inflation, unemployment, or financial crisis harms most those with less cushion, such as low-income households, retirees, and marginalized communities. Loss of Fed independence could reduce the ability to act preemptively or prudently, thereby compromising broader social stability.
Politics Behind the Case
Advocates of strong presidential control, often aligned with the “unitary executive” theory, argue that executive power requires flexibility, especially over modern institutions that profoundly affect the economy. They claim statutory protections created decades ago are outdated in the face of contemporary economic challenges.
Opponents, including many economists, financial markets, and some congressional voices, argue that political interference in the Fed undermines its credibility and leads to worse policy outcomes, such as inflation or boom-bust cycles. They see the Cook case as a critical test of whether statutory and historical protections will hold up.
The legal precedent at issue traces back to Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which affirmed congressional power to have agencies whose heads are protected from arbitrary dismissal. Many view this as one of the foundational walls shielding agency independence.
In short, the ruling, so far, that prevents a president from immediately firing an independent Fed governor without cause is critical because it affirms core structural features Congress built into the Federal Reserve. Protections that were designed to ensure stable, responsible economic policy beyond short-term political whims. If those protections are reversed or circumvented, both democratic norms and financial stability could suffer.
The 5 Worst Supreme Court Decisions of the Last Century
Bad legal doctrine, with significant political and societal consequences, appears to be rampant, with the Fed decision chief among them, potentially.
Over the last 100 years, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has handed down several rulings that many constitutional scholars, political reformers, civil rights activists, and even some mainstream legal observers consider among the worst.
These decisions have expanded executive power, weakened individual rights, distorted democratic norms, and undermined checks and balances afforded by the United States Constitution.
Five such rulings, ranked in order of negative impact, in our opinion, are:
1. Trump v. United States (2024) – Presidential Immunity for Official Acts
What the Court Held: In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS ruled that a President (including former Presidents) enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for “core constitutional powers” (official acts within the President’s exclusive constitutional authority), and presumptive immunity for other “official acts.” Unofficial acts are not immune, the Court held.
Why it is Seen by Many As Among the Worst: This decision dramatically shifts the balance of power. It places the President above ordinary criminal accountability for a broad swath of actions, even some that might violate laws or involve serious misconduct, so long as those acts are deemed “official.” Critics warn that it opens the door for abuses of power with minimal legal recourse.
Ramifications & Who It Impacts Most: From an accountability perspective, it limits or delays legal proceedings against presidents, potentially insulating them from wrongdoing. From a rule of law perspective, it undermines the principle that no one is above the law, including a president, leading to the possible erosion of checks by Congress, courts, or the public. Future presidents are influenced by the ruling that sets a precedent, which could protect them from criminal liability for the misuse of power, even when it involves a former president. And victims of presidential misconduct who are harmed by “official acts” may have little recourse.
The Politics Behind It: The conservative-leaning majority, appointed mainly by the Republican administration, argued for a strong theory of executive authority, emphasizing constitutional structure and separation of powers. The dissenters warned of authoritarian drift, with concerns that the Court is giving more power to the presidency than the Framers intended. This was seen as a victory for efforts to shield presidential power, especially amid investigations into election interference and the January 6 events.
2. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) – Overturning Roe v. Wade
What the Court Held: By a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey rulings, thus ending 50 years of federal constitutional protection for abortion rights. The decision upheld a 2018 Mississippi law that challenged the constitutional right through what was called the Gestational Age Act, banning most abortions after 15 weeks. The 15-week criterion was significantly tighter than the earlier 24-week threshold established under Roe v. Wade. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Magnolia state’s only abortion provider, challenged the law. While framed initially as a test of whether pre-viability abortion bans were constitutional, the Court’s new conservative supermajority used the case as a vehicle to fully reverse Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), ending the federal constitutional right to abortion.
Why It Is One of the Worst SCOTUS Decisions: Dobbs v. Jackson did not merely modify abortion jurisprudence; it stripped a core constitutional right from half the population who had the right established a half-century before. This decision set back gender equality in America, endangered women’s health, and motivated a new wave of culture war politics. The decision violated the Court’s own precedents and fueled mistrust in and of the judiciary. Like Trump v. United States, Dobbs reflects the growing majoritarian authoritarianism of the Court, where rights previously protected under constitutional interpretation are delegated to legislatures with wildly inconsistent levels of fairness and access to justice.
Ramifications & Who It Impacts Most: Fifty years of precedent were discarded by the SCOTUS decision. Dobbs marks one of the most radical reversals of precedent in U.S. legal history, dismantling the concept of reproductive autonomy as a protected 14th Amendment Due Process Clause right. Abortion access, in effect, becomes a state lottery under the decision. As a result of Dobbs, more than a dozen states immediately banned or severely restricted abortion through what is termed “trigger laws,” and many more states have since passed legislation with minimal or no exceptions for rape, incest, or fetal viability. Abortion rights, in essence, now depend entirely on geography, disproportionately affecting low-income women, women of color, and rural populations, many of whom cannot afford to travel out of state for care. This decision has had a chilling effect on the field of medicine and women’s health. Physicians now face legal ambiguity about when life-saving abortions are permissible, leading to delayed care, out-of-state referrals, and a climate of fear among providers, especially in red states with vague or punitive laws.
The Politics Behind the Decision: According to observers, the Dobbs decision was not the product of sudden legal insight, but rather the culmination of a long political campaign by conservative legal networks, most notably the influential Federalist Society, to reshape the Court’s ideological balance. Every justice in the majority was appointed by a president who lost the popular vote, and three were appointed by President Trump, who explicitly promised to overturn Roe. Several justices assured the Senate during their confirmation hearings that Roe was “settled law,” leading to considerable public outcry over judicial integrity.
3. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) – Corporate Money in Politics
What the Court Held: The Court held that political spending by corporations and other associations in elections is protected under the First Amendment. In effect, corporations, unions, or similar entities can spend unlimited sums on independent political expenditures.
Why Many See It as a Malign Ruling: Many see the Court as dramatically increasing the flow of money into politics, weakening campaign finance regulations, and enabling disproportionate influence by wealthy individuals, corporations, and special interest groups.
Ramifications & Who It Impacts Most: Small donors and average citizens see their political voice diluted. Elections and campaign races are more expensive, with incumbents or those with access to wealthy backers often having an advantage. It raises the risks of soft corruption, quid pro quo, and political favors, whether actual or perceived.
The Politics Behind It: A conservative Court majority emphasizing free speech rights, corporate rights, and dismantling what they view as unconstitutional constraints on political speech. Strong pushback from progressives and activists who see it as undermining democracy.
4. Shelby County v. Holder (2013) – Weakening the Voting Rights Act
What the Court Held: In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS struck down key parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, specifically the formula in Section 4 that determined which jurisdictions required federal pre-clearance before changing voting laws. The Court said that the conditions that once justified those protections no longer persisted, thus Congress could not base pre-clearance on that formula without updated evidence.
Why One of the Worst Decisions: This decision opened the door for states to pass restrictive voting laws without federal oversight. It also removed a critical check on jurisdictions with histories of voter suppression.
Who Suffers the Most: Voters in minority communities, rural areas, and areas with historically discriminatory voting practices, as well as young, low-income, nonwhite voters who often depend on strong protections against suppression.
The Politics Behind the Decision: Immediately after Shelby, many states passed new laws that critics say restrict access, such as ID laws, purging voter rolls, and limiting early voting. The politics surrounding election integrity, voting laws, and the balance of power between states and the federal government have intensified ever since. Activists and legislators have been encouraged to seek new voting rights legislation but also emboldened states to assert more autonomy over voting.
5. Kelo v. City of New London (2005) – Eminent Domain for Private Development
What the Court Held: In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS allowed a city to seize private homes under eminent domain, related to the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, for economic development, even if the primary benefit accrues to private developers, so long as there is a projected public economic benefit.
Why Many Consider This a Bad Decision: The Kelo decision significantly expanded the government’s power to take private property, often under dubious premises, such as “economic revitalization” or “public purpose,” favoring developers or politically connected interests. The decision provoked widespread outrage in the New London community.
The Ramifications & Who They Impact: Homeowners, particularly in low-income minority communities, are most vulnerable to losing their property. Property rights protections are diluted, making property ownership less secure. After Kelo, many states passed laws to curb eminent domain abuses, igniting for many a political rallying point in their neighborhoods.
The Politics Behind the Decision: The decision aligned with urban redevelopment and growth coalitions, often favored by local governments and developers. The ensuing backlash was bipartisan among property rights advocates and civil libertarians in many areas. Conservative and liberal politicians alike criticized the decision. The decision highlighted the contested nature of the Court’s doctrines regarding “public use” and the extent to which legislative and judicial deference afford local governments broad leeway.
Emerging Concerns & Overlap
Some of these SCOTUS decisions, as well as others that occurred in recent years, intersect. The Trump v. United States ruling on presidential immunity builds on the logic of an earlier case, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, in 1974, potentially weakening the enforcement of other legal norms.
Similarly, decisions like Citizens United and Shelby County shift power from the people to institutions, moneyed interests, or the state, unrestrained by oversight, in ways that clearly harm democratic legitimacy.
Why These Rulings Have Political and Civic Consequences
The political and civic consequences of these rulings are numerous, but chief among them are:
An erosion of trust: As the Court issues rulings seen as favoring powerful actors or reducing accountability, public confidence in the Court and in government measurably suffers.
Partisan polarization and backlash: Many of these decisions trigger political mobilization, especially among civil rights, voting rights, and anti-corruption constituencies.
Power shift: They tend to augment executive or state powers, weaken constitutional checks and balances by other branches, reduce individual civil rights, and centralize political influence in corporations, wealthy donors, and the like.
Legal uncertainty and instability: Because some decisions overturn longstanding precedent, as we saw with Dobbs overturning Roe, or create vague doctrines as to what counts as an “official” act for immunity, what counts as a “public use” for takings, they make law far less predictable.
Political Implications of These Rulings
So, what have the political implications of these rulings been?
Partisan Appointments: Most of the rulings above reflect a pattern of long-term conservative legal strategy, building from Reagan to Trump, that has reshaped the judiciary, particularly through appointments from the Federalist Society pipeline.
Generational Backlash: Gen Z and Millennials, now the largest voting blocs, are increasingly skeptical of unchecked presidential power and judicial decisions that appear ideologically driven rather than grounded in democratic fairness.
Calls for Reform: They include term limits or age caps for Supreme Court justices, ethics code and transparency standards, an expanded Court size, and Congressional reassertion of oversight powers, especially on voting rights and judicial review.
Where Reform Might Help
There are numerous options for viable reform available:
Congress could attempt to legislate remedies or clarify doctrine, especially around presidential accountability and voting rights.
State legislature might pass stronger protections, particularly in voting and property rights.
Advocacy and public pressure matter because many bad rulings lead to grassroots backlash and policy reversals or reforms at the state level.
Institutional reform, such as changes to how justices are appointed, how many can be appointed, court transparency, and ethics, could shift incentives in future Court terms.
Conclusion
While the Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution, the shape of that interpretation has enormous consequences for democracy, individual freedom, and the balance of power the Framers designed for Americans. The five rulings above illustrate how judicial doctrine, when untethered from accountability, equal protection, and democratic norms, can do as much damage as good.
Thomas will continue to monitor and analyze these doctrines, especially new ones like presidential immunity, because how we understand power in law often determines how freely a society can live under it.