How the U.S. Supreme Court and FTC decisions impact consumers

Two highly anticipated Supreme Court decisions on Monday could have far-reaching implications for consumers, both positive and negative, financial experts say.

In one ruling, the Supreme Court justices upheld the Federal Reserve’s independence from political influence, at least for now, which experts said is a win for consumers and the U.S. economy.

Another decision, which gives the president the power to fire members of other federal commissions such as the Federal Trade Commission, could lead to more instability in policymaking under future presidential administrations and regulatory whiplash for consumers and businesses, researchers said.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court sided with Federal Reserve chief Lisa Cook, who President Donald Trump tried to remove in August 2025.

Federal Reserve Board members have a 14-year term and can only be removed for cause. Cook’s term is scheduled to expire in 2038.

In a letter to Cook in August 2025, President Trump said he had “reason to believe” that a Fed director appointed by former President Joe Biden committed mortgage fraud. Cook said the attempted removal was not for “just cause” and had not been subject to due process.

Experts say the outcome of the case will have major implications for the central bank’s independence and the president’s ability to install allies who can sway monetary policy based on political whims.

They said the ruling effectively maintains the status quo and is in the interest of consumers and the U.S. economy.

“We view Mr. Cook’s decision as limiting the president’s ability to remove the president of the Federal Reserve,” TD Cowen monetary policy analyst Jarrett Seiberg said in a note Monday. “This should strengthen the independence of the central bank and make it less likely that the president will try to remove other governors in order to put his supporters on the board.”

Fed officials vote on interest rate policy and try to balance inflation and the labor market.

David Wessel, a senior fellow and director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said politicians would generally prefer lower interest rates in the short term to stimulate the economy, reduce unemployment and lower borrowing costs in the run-up to elections.

However, experts say such effects are likely to be temporary and that continuing artificially low interest rates will likely mean overheating the economy and higher inflation in the medium to long term, potentially weakening the economy.

This is why the Fed’s independence, and that of other developed countries’ central banks, is so important, experts say.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s, said that while the negative effects of artificially low interest rates will take time to become apparent, it would be a “much darker scenario” than if the Fed were independent.

He added that these negative impacts would come at a time when the U.S. is already struggling with affordability issues and high inflation.

The Supreme Court ruled that Trump did not meet the legal standard to fire Cook for cause.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that accepting President Trump’s position “effectively turns the Federal Reserve’s cause protection into at-will employment. This is an interpretive leap that departs sharply from the statutes of Congress and from our nation’s central bank tradition of protection from political interference.”

Roberts wrote that the Founding Fathers knew from experience the “disaster” that could ensue if the Fed was influenced by politics.

“Not only the fact of independence, but also the appearance of independence, is key to the design of the Federal Reserve System,” he wrote.

The Supreme Court’s decision is not necessarily the final decision on Cook’s dismissal.

The majority held that Mr. Cook was entitled to some explanation of the evidence against him and was entitled to respond to the motion.

“A final decision may only be made after Ms. Cook has had the opportunity to respond to the charges against her,” Roberts wrote. “And only then can the court assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges.”

“What that means is that the case is not over yet,” Seiberg wrote. “The President may begin the process of removing Mr. Cook from office, during which he may present evidence to support his cause removal.”

When asked for comment about the Supreme Court justices and the president’s plans, the White House pointed to social media posts made by President Trump after Monday’s ruling.

In the post, the president indicated that the administration would “immediately take appropriate action.”

Meanwhile, in a separate 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court gave President Trump and future presidents the power to remove members of independent federal agencies that perform functions under the executive branch of government.

In March 2025, shortly after President Trump began his second term, he fired two Democratic appointees from the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, which Roberts also wrote, said Trump did not specify the cause for the firings but said their service was “inconsistent with (the administration’s) priorities.”

The high court sided with Trump, arguing that the FTC’s cause-based removal clause was inconsistent with the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Experts say the ruling affects all independent federal agencies, which typically have bipartisan committees. In addition to the FTC, it also includes the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

“The FTC’s opinion is important to financial regulation,” Seiberg wrote. “The justices gave future presidents the power to fire members of independent agencies.”

In a social media post on Monday, President Trump called the Supreme Court’s decision a “huge victory” and “one of the most significant presidential powers ever given.”

In another post, he said the ruling “significantly” strengthens the president’s powers “at a time when they are most needed.”

But other observers said the outcome would be negative for consumers.

The Supreme Court has undermined the ability of regulators to perform functions such as “protecting worker rights, protecting consumers from unsafe products and unfair business practices, (and) overseeing financial markets and protecting investors,” wrote Rachel Weintraub, executive director of the Sensible Safeguards Coalition.

Experts say consumers and businesses are likely to see policies change rapidly from administration to administration, especially when they are from different political parties.

“I think what we’re going to see with all these regulators is a swing of the pendulum,” said Wessel of the Brookings Institution.

“If I think consumers who use meth or small business owners who sell on Amazon will be better off by this decision, then I’m Dora the Explorer,” Bedoya said at a press conference Monday morning.

“This is going to be a terrible outcome for consumers, and they’re the ones who have to pay the price for all of this,” Bedoya said.