The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a pair of blockbuster rulings Monday that are already being described as some of the most consequential decisions in decades.
But while headlines initially focused on President Donald Trump’s victory over independent federal agencies, one legal expert believes something even larger happened.
According to Slate legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern, the Court didn’t simply strengthen the presidency.
It may have fundamentally weakened Congress itself.
And in his view, the consequences could reshape American government for generations.
“The biggest loser is Congress,” Stern argued, warning that the Court has taken “one more big step toward autocracy.”
His comments came after the Supreme Court issued two major rulings involving presidential authority over independent federal agencies.
In the closely watched Trump v. Slaughter decision, the Court’s conservative majority overturned the 91-year-old precedent established by Humphrey’s Executor, ruling that presidents have broad authority to remove leaders of many independent federal agencies without having to show cause.
The decision immediately cleared the way for President Trump to remove Democratic officials from agencies that had traditionally enjoyed a significant degree of political independence.
But only hours later, the Court issued another decision that puzzled many legal observers.
In Trump v. Cook, Chief Justice John Roberts joined a different majority that blocked Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
For Stern, the two rulings appear extraordinarily difficult to reconcile.
“On what basis,” he asked, “could the Court allow Trump to remove officials throughout much of the federal government while simultaneously protecting members of the Federal Reserve?”
According to Stern, the opinions provide very little explanation for treating one independent agency differently from another.
That uncertainty, he argues, could create years of legal confusion.
The broader implications, however, are what concern him most.
For nearly a century, Congress has relied on independent agencies to oversee major areas of American life—from consumer protection and labor law to nuclear energy, communications, financial regulation, and workplace safety.
These agencies were intentionally structured to operate with some insulation from direct presidential control.
Monday’s ruling changes that balance dramatically.
Stern argues that presidents may now wield far greater influence over agencies that Congress specifically designed to function independently.
In practical terms, future administrations could replace agency leaders far more easily whenever political priorities shift.
Supporters of the ruling argue that’s exactly how democratic accountability should work.
They contend that voters elect presidents to manage the executive branch, and presidents should therefore have authority over the officials carrying out federal policy.
Critics see something very different.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, accused the majority of dramatically altering the constitutional structure of government.
She argued the Court had embraced a theory of nearly total presidential control over the executive branch that departs sharply from long-standing constitutional practice.
Stern echoed those concerns in particularly blunt terms.
He argued that Congress’ constitutional authority to organize the executive branch has effectively been stripped away.
“It is tempting to say that the biggest loser is Congress,” he wrote, describing the legislative branch’s authority as having been “nuked from orbit.”
But he believes the consequences extend even further.
According to Stern, ordinary Americans ultimately stand to lose the most if institutional checks on presidential authority continue disappearing.
He warned that each new expansion of executive power moves the United States further away from its traditional system of separated powers and closer toward centralized executive control.
His concerns also extend beyond Monday’s immediate rulings.
He pointed to ongoing disputes involving the U.S. Postal Service, where questions surrounding presidential authority, agency independence, and mail-in voting continue to generate legal battles across the country.
Federal courts are already reviewing challenges involving election administration and executive authority, suggesting that Monday’s decisions may only mark the beginning of a much broader constitutional struggle.
Despite the dramatic reactions, constitutional scholars remain divided.
Some legal experts argue the Court merely restored powers the Constitution always intended presidents to possess.
Others believe the decisions represent one of the largest expansions of presidential authority in modern American history.
What virtually everyone agrees upon, however, is that Monday’s rulings will have consequences far beyond Donald Trump’s presidency.
Future Republican and Democratic presidents alike may inherit significantly expanded authority over the federal bureaucracy.
For Stern, that possibility is precisely what makes the decisions so consequential.
His warning ended with a question that captured his broader concern.
How many more constitutional shifts, he asked, can America’s system of government absorb before it begins “crashing down”?
Whether history ultimately proves those fears justified remains uncertain.
But after Monday’s extraordinary Supreme Court decisions, one thing is beyond dispute: the balance of power between the presidency, Congress, and the federal government has entered a new—and highly contested—chapter.
