As always, the final days of June bring a wave of decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court on major cases. This year was no exception, with four rulings that could have a direct or indirect impact on employers and human resources practices.
The first decision was issued on June 25. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the administration could immediately end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for Haitians and Syrians, and potentially other TPS recipients, while legal challenges to the termination of that status continue through the courts. In Mullen v. Doe, et.al., No. 25–1083 (2026), the Supreme Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims.
Why does this impact HR? There are many workers who have TPS status and have employment authorization. Therefore, an outcome may be that employment authorization is revoked and that DHS agents may come to the workplace to pursue those workers for deportation purposes. HR needs to work with legal counsel to plan for such outcomes.
The second decision was issued on June 29. In a 6-3 ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332 (2026), the Supreme Court held that the President has the authority to remove not only leaders of executive branch agencies but also leaders of independent agencies. The decision marks a significant shift from the Court’s earlier ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935). In that case, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to remove a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner who opposed aspects of his economic agenda. The Supreme Court at the time ruled that the removal was not permitted, establishing an exception that limited the President’s authority over independent agencies. The executive branch includes both traditional executive agencies, such as the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, and independent agencies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the FTC. Over time, the Supreme Court has moved away from the Humphrey’s Executor precedent and toward the “unitary executive” theory, which holds that the President has broad authority over the entire executive branch, regardless of whether an agency is classified as executive or independent. This latest decision further reinforces that shift.
Why does this matter for HR? The decision could have significant implications for employers by creating greater uncertainty around regulatory enforcement. With fewer limitations on presidential authority over agency leadership, enforcement priorities may shift more dramatically from one administration to the next. For example, one administration may prioritize efforts to restrict DEI initiatives and increase immigration enforcement, while a future administration could take a different approach by expanding DEI efforts and changing immigration policies.
For HR professionals, this could make it more challenging to maintain consistent compliance strategies if regulatory agencies’ priorities change significantly with each administration. Frequent turnover among agency leaders may also become more common if officials are expected to align closely with the current administration’s policy goals.
Interestingly, in a related case, the Supreme Court ruled that the President does not have unlimited authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board. This decision preserves a narrow exception to the broader expansion of presidential control under the unitary executive theory.
As a safeguard, the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo limited the authority of federal agencies by overturning the long-standing Chevron deference doctrine. Under the previous standard, courts generally deferred to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes. The Loper Bright decision clarified that agencies must act within the authority granted by their governing statutes, and courts have the responsibility to independently determine whether an agency has exceeded those boundaries.
While these limits provide important guardrails, enforcing them often requires costly and time-consuming legal challenges. As a result, HR professionals may continue to face uncertainty as regulatory priorities shift with changes in political leadership, creating additional challenges in maintaining consistent compliance strategies.
Next, on June 30th the Supreme Court ruled that states can ban transgender women and girls from playing on female sports teams, a bitterly fought issue that has been a political and cultural flashpoint. In West Virginia v. B.J.P., No. 24–43 (2026), the court ruled against two young athletes—one now in high school, the other finishing college—whose sex was recorded as male at birth but who identify as female. “The Constitution does not require that schools determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on gender identity rather than biological sex,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court.
Why is this important for HR? The ruling could start bleeding into the workplace, as this administration has been pushing for overturning the Bostock decision that had gender identity and sexual orientation included in the definition under Title VII purposes. With anti-DEI, pro-religion, and the push against LGBTQIA rights (the EEOC may not follow-up on their workplace complaints), HR will have to navigate a bumpy and potentially explosive trek to ensure all employee rights are protected. The EEOC has removed data on LGBTQ+ discrimination from its webpage that tracks charge filings year over year, continuing the agency's retreat on policing sexual orientation and gender identity bias under the Trump administration. Religion objections to LGBTQIA workers could rise. In a recent case involving Alaska Airlines, the U.S. Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals revived a lawsuit that alleged that the airline engaged in religious discrimination by firing two flight attendants who criticized the company’s support for expanding legal protections for LGBTQ people.
Finally, birthright citizenship is upheld. The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 (2026) on June 30th that “under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” More specifically, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “[c]itizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to every free-born person in this land. We keep that promise today.” If this ruling had gone the other way, it could have had significant implications for employers and employees, particularly regarding work authorization and eligibility to work in the United States. Depending on an administration’s interpretation and enforcement priorities, employers could have faced greater uncertainty over compliance requirements, as well as potential civil and criminal penalties for violations.