Supreme Court's 2026 term produces mixed record for Trump on tariffs, citizenship, and agency power

A 6-3 majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts handed President Donald Trump sweeping authority to dismiss federal agency heads, while separate coalitions of justices blocked his worldwide tariff policy, rejected his birthright citizenship challenge, and preserved Federal Reserve independence in the term that ended last week, according to an analysis by constitutional law scholar John Yoo.

Trump's wins followed the Roberts Court's existing course

In Trump v. Slaughter, Roberts wrote for the majority that the president holds constitutional authority to fire, at will, any officer who executes federal law. The ruling eliminated the independent-agency model established under Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 90-year-old precedent, with the Federal Trade Commission as the case at issue. Yoo's analysis notes the Roberts Court had been narrowing agency independence for more than 15 years before the ruling landed.

The Court decided in West Virginia v. B.P.J. that transgender athletes hold no constitutional right to compete in sports categories outside those based on biological sex at birth. Justice Brett Kavanaugh led the majority, which treated the question as state domestic policy. The approach followed the Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which returned abortion policy to the states.

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court struck down race-based congressional redistricting outside narrow circumstances. The ruling extends Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019, which barred lower courts from reviewing maps for partisan bias, and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard in 2023, which ended race-conscious college admissions.

Three decisions blocked White House authority

The Court struck down the administration's worldwide tariffs in Learning Resources, holding they exceeded the power Congress delegated during international emergencies. A majority reaffirmed birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara. Yoo's analysis describes the principle as governing the country from colonial times, broken only by the Court's own 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which denied citizenship to freed and enslaved African Americans.

In Trump v. Cook, the justices rejected Trump's bid to remove a Federal Reserve Board official, preserving the central bank's independence even as Slaughter eliminated it elsewhere. Yoo notes the Fed traces its roots to the first Bank of the United States, chartered in 1791. After the tariffs decision, Trump attacked conservative justices by name, calling them a "disgrace to our nation" and "disloyal."

Democratic leaders call for expanding the Court

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer referred throughout the term to the "MAGA Supreme Court." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the "corrupt conservative majority" responsible for taking "a blowtorch" to civil rights laws. Former 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris called last week for discussing expansion of the Court's membership.

Yoo's analysis argues the justices are pursuing an independent constitutional agenda centered on restoring structural limits on federal power and ending government use of race, not acting as a partisan arm of either party. The Fed carve-out in Trump v. Cook illustrates that directly: an institution with statutory roots dating to 1791 survived the same removal logic that ended FTC independence in the same term.