GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "News Hour."

The U.S.

Supreme Court today issued two major rulings that significantly expand presidential power and President Donald Trump's attempt to further reshape the federal government.

AMNA NAWAZ: In a 5-4 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court's justices said the president does not have the power to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

In the decision, the chief justice wrote -- quote - - "To accept any one of the administration's arguments would in effect transform the Federal Reserve's for-cause protection into at-will employment, an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our nation's tradition of Central Banking protected from political interference."

But in a separate ruling issue today, Justice Roberts handed the president broader power to fire the heads of independent agencies, overturning a nearly century-old legal president.

In that case, which involved the removal of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, the chief justice said -- quote - - "Subordinates who exercise the president's power are subject to removal by him."

The president celebrated the Slaughter decision in a post on his social media platform, saying the justices increased presidential power quote at a time when it's most needed.

For more on today's rulings, I'm joined now by "News Hour" Supreme Court analyst and SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe.

Amy, good to see you.

AMY HOWE: Good to see you too.

AMNA NAWAZ: So two rulings on presidential power, different directions for each one.

And let's start with the ruling for Lisa Cook.

Why did the justices block her firing for now?

AMY HOWE: So, the justices, the majority, by Chief Justice John Roberts, really stressed the importance of the Fed's independence.

They pointed to the First and Second National Banks and said that Congress had really wanted those to be independent, and that the Fed followed in those footsteps.

They talked about the importance of having monetary policy be independent of outside influence and that, if the president could fire a Fed governor for any reason, that it would potentially impede on that independence.

And so they said that Lisa Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before she could be fired, and that she hadn't gotten that when President Trump attempted to fire her in a TRUTH Social post.

AMNA NAWAZ: In a statement, we should note, Lisa Cook hailed the decision as one affirming a key principle that, she put it -- quote -- "that the Federal Reserve must make all its policies and policy decisions guided by evidence and independent judgment and free from political interference."

But, Amy, is this ruling a good sign for the Fed, where the president has tried to exhort more control, or is it just a temporary pause in that fight?

AMY HOWE: I think it's a good sign for the Fed.

We have got five justices who feel very strongly, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, about the Fed's independence.

And it seems perhaps the president could try to find cause to fire a member of the Fed.

Certainly, this doesn't rule that out.

But the majority's ruling certainly makes it much harder for him to do that.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, let's turn now to the Slaughter decision that involves the firing of the FTC Commissioner, as we noted.

And Justice Roberts also wrote the majority opinion here, ruling the president can fire members of independent agencies.

How did Roberts justify that presidential power?

AMY HOWE: So it's kind of a corollary to the idea, I think it was Harry S. Truman, the buck stops here.

He talked about the idea that the president is the head of the executive branch and really has to carry out all of the laws.

And he said, to do that, the president needs to make sure that everyone who's working for him is working effectively, and he needs to be able to fire the people who aren't.

And so there was this 1930s decision called Humphrey's Executor, in which the Supreme Court had upheld the very law that Rebecca Slaughter was relying on in this case.

And the Supreme Court basically said that that was a very narrow view of what the FTC was doing then, but certainly now the FTC is exercising what the Supreme Court called executive power.

It enforces laws, it can bring lawsuits, it carries out investigations, it can impose fines, and that's the kind of power that really belongs to the president.

AMNA NAWAZ: Rebecca Slaughter reacted to the ruling today.

Here's part of what she had to say.

REBECCA SLAUGHTER, Former Federal Trade Commissioner: What we have seen is a massive expansion of executive power at the expense of Congress, who designed these agencies to work on behalf of the people and not the powerful.

And it's at the expense of those people, who deserve a government that fights for them without fear or favor and doesn't just reward the president's allies and punish his perceived enemies.

AMNA NAWAZ: Amy, how in your view does this shape or reshape presidential power?

AMY HOWE: It's really an enormous expansion of presidential power.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent noted that obviously this doesn't apply just to the FTC, but to, she said, potentially dozens of what had until now been independent agencies, like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and many others that Congress had intended to be independent from the president.

But now the president can control who's part of those agencies.

AMNA NAWAZ: There's another big decision I need to ask you about.

That was the Supreme Court rejecting President Trump's push to review the verdict in the E. Jean Carroll case.

That involved a $5 million civil judgment against him.

That was after a jury found that he had sexually abused and defamed the writer E. Jean Carroll.

the president says that he plans to fight the ruling.

Does he have a path for further appeal here?

AMY HOWE: There's really not much of a path.

Certainly, he could ask the Supreme Court to consider this again.

They almost never do.

This was a really unusual case, in the sense that he'd appealed, asking the Supreme Court to take up this case.

The Supreme Court had put off even considering it over and over again for a couple of months.

And then today, without any comment, they turned it down.

There was no one -- none of the justices, as they sometimes do, wrote any separate writings to say that they would have taken up this case.

There was no sign that any of the justices necessarily were interested in doing anything with it.

AMNA NAWAZ: Another big day at the court.

More to come.

"News Hour" Supreme Court analyst SCOTUSblog co-founder Amy Howe, thank you so much.

AMY HOWE: Thank you.