On July 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of rulings that expanded presidential authority, including the power to dismiss heads of federal agencies without congressional approval, and allowed policies that limit birthright citizenship, restrict transgender participation in sports, and alter voting rights, as well as immigration measures that strip temporary protected status from Haitian and Syrian residents. The Court now includes six justices appointed during the Trump presidency, giving it a six‑to‑three conservative majority. The decisions were based on arguments presented by the administration and by opinions written by the justices. In the Slaughter case, the Court held that the president may remove the head of any federal agency at will, overturning a 1935 precedent that had placed limits on such removals. The ruling relied on the unitary executive theory, which holds that the president has sole authority over the executive branch. Justice Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion stating that further actions to curb the administrative state may be required. The birthright citizenship ruling was decided 5‑4. The majority upheld the constitutional guarantee that individuals born in the United States are citizens, while four justices expressed concerns about the principle. The Court also issued orders allowing the administration to bar transgender girls from competing in female sports and to eliminate campaign finance restrictions on party contributions, actions that legal analysts say could influence the upcoming congressional elections. In addition, the Court approved the removal of temporary protected status for residents of Haiti and Syria, advancing the administration’s immigration agenda. Legal scholars have noted that the rulings represent a notable shift in the balance of power. Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, said the Court’s willingness to consider previously unconsidered positions could lead to a majority supporting Trump’s program. Daniel Epps of Washington University observed that the decisions diminish the administrative state by granting the president greater control over agencies. Kim Lane Scheppele of Princeton said the Court’s composition may affect its willingness to rule against the executive’s agenda. The decisions raise questions about congressional oversight and civil service protections, especially if the opposition party gains control of the House in the November midterm elections.