Intelligence. Accountability. Analysis.
Est. 2022 · Washington, D.C.
The Congressional Times
We follow the data, not the narrative
◆ Live Intelligence
Loading...
Analysis Loading today's analysis...
Legal Intelligence

Supreme Court to Rule on Trump Fed Removal Power and Birthright Citizenship

Two pending decisions will test the boundaries of executive authority over independent agencies and the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause — outcomes that could reshape federal...

The Congressional Times · June 28, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings this week in two cases directly involving President Donald Trump, according to Bloomberg News reporting published June 28, 2026. The cases center on Trump's attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her position and a separate executive order restricting birthright citizenship.

The Federal Reserve case concerns whether the President holds authority to remove a sitting Fed governor outside of the statutory 'for cause' protections established under the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. § 242). Governor Cook was appointed by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate in May 2022 (Senate Executive Calendar, 117th Congress). The administration's legal position, filed with the Court, argues that Article II of the Constitution grants the President broad removal authority over executive officers. Cook's legal team disputes that a Fed governor constitutes a purely executive officer subject to at-will removal. The specific docket number and the full text of the administration's merits brief are available on the Supreme Court's public docket at supremecourt.gov.

The birthright citizenship case challenges an executive order signed by President Trump that sought to limit automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment for children born in the United States to parents who are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents. Multiple federal district courts issued injunctions blocking the order, with at least three circuit courts upholding those injunctions pending Supreme Court review, according to public docket records. The administration appealed the injunctions, and the Court agreed to hear the matter on an expedited basis, as reflected in the Court's published order list.

The two cases arrive in the same week, creating a high-stakes period for constitutional litigation involving executive power. Legal scholars across the ideological spectrum have noted that the removal-power question has direct implications for the independence of other regulatory bodies — including the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission — because precedent established in the Cook case could apply to commissioners of those agencies as well. The scope of any such ruling is currently unknown; the Court's written opinion will determine whether any holding is narrow or broad.

What remains unknown ahead of the decisions: the precise legal standard the Court will apply in each case, whether any ruling will be unanimous or divided, and whether the Court will issue a stay of any existing injunction or a final merits ruling. The full text of each opinion will be published on supremecourt.gov on the day of release. Readers seeking the underlying legal arguments may review the parties' merits briefs, which are publicly available on the Court's docket pages for each respective case number.

Today's Analysis
Loading...
Latest Intelligence
Congressional Intelligence
Loading...
Financial Intelligence
Loading...
Geopolitical Intelligence
Loading...
Follow the MoneyGab-E Political Intelligence Investigation
Loading...
Opinion & Analysis
Loading...
Archive
Loading...
About
Our Mission

We Follow the Data, Not the Narrative

The Congressional Times exists because public records are public — and the analysis built from them should not be exclusive to those who can afford $60,000-a-year intelligence subscriptions.

Every story published in The Congressional Times is sourced to a verifiable public record: a court filing, a Senate lobbying disclosure, an FEC contribution record, a USASpending contract, or a verified news report. We state our sources inline. We show our math. When we are wrong, we say so publicly.

We do not editorialize in news coverage. We do not use loaded language. Both political parties are held to identical standards.

The Follow the Money investigations are the heart of this publication. Each begins with Gab-E Political Intelligence running against 10+ million government records before a single word of editorial is written.

Powered by Gab-E, an elite global intelligence platform built to democratize political and financial intelligence.

Editorial Policy
Editorial Standards & Corrections Policy

How We Source, Verify, and Correct Our Work

Every factual claim in a Congressional Times story is checked against a primary source: a government filing, a court record, a direct quote, before publication. When a claim can't be verified or doesn't hold up as originally reported, we drop it or reframe it. We do not publish disputed claims as settled fact.

When we get it wrong: we correct the story directly, note the correction and date at the bottom of the piece, and update the record. We do not quietly edit and move on.

Bylines: stories with a named byline are written and fact-checked by that person. Stories without a byline are sourced from Gab-E Political Intelligence, our automated research platform, and are labeled as such.

Ownership: The Congressional Times is published by Gab-E Holdings LLC. Gab-E, our intelligence platform, powers our sourcing and research pipeline.

Corrections or concerns: support@gab-e.com