What we're watching
• The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to immediately fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, further cementing the Fed’s independence.
• The court, meanwhile, expanded the president’s power to fire officials, overturning the nearly century-old precedent Humphrey’s Executor. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent, said it “promises only chaos.”
• The justices also upheld state laws that count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, an unexpected rebuff of Trump’s longstanding attacks on mail-in voting. Trump immediately called for Congress to pass the “SAVE America Act,” which would limit mail ballots and install strict new ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting.
• The court also denied President Donald Trump’s appeal of the E. Jean Carroll verdict, meaning he must pay $5 million to the former columnist. Justices also denied Alan Dershowitz’s defamation appeal against CNN.
Former FTC commissioner says she's "sad" for US after Supreme Court decision
The former Federal Trade Commissioner whose firing last year by President Donald Trump was upheld in a Supreme Court decision on Monday said she was “sad” for the country.
“I think that that is incredibly sad,” she added. “And that’s really what I’m focused on.”
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that Trump could fire leaders of independent agencies or commissions.
Last March, Trump fired Slaughter, who had served on the FTC since 2018 and is a Democrat, despite a federal law that permits the dismissal of FTC commissioners only for cause.
Today’s Supreme Court decision represented a major win for Trump and his authority to unilaterally rid the federal government — even nominally independent agencies — of his political opponents.
Trump promises further action after court allows Cook to remain at Fed
President Donald Trump said he will take “appropriate action immediately” after the Supreme Court rejected his attempt to immediately fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
“The Cook Lawsuit, having to do with her suitability in sitting on the Board of the Federal Reserve, was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, adding, “we will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!”
Trump attempted to remove Cook based on allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied. The court declined to resolve the underlying merits of Cook’s case but rather said that she was entitled to notice and a fair opportunity to respond to Trump’s claims.
Court spars over role fraud fears should play in mail ballot case
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion didn’t entirely discount concerns about how mail ballot grace periods could invite fraud, or at least a perception of fraud, into the election. Rather, she wrote, that legislatures — and not the court — should decide how those fears should be addressed.
“As we have said time and again, however, policy arguments are properly directed to legislatures, not courts,” she wrote. “The question today is not whether requiring ballots to be received by election day is a good or bad idea; the question is whether the idea has made its way into the United States Code.”
Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissent joined by three other conservatives, wrote at length about how the majority ruling “compounds” on the “vulnerabilities” of mail-in voting, suggesting that it could fuel “ballot harvest(ing)” by political parties, interest groups or even Uber drivers.
Barrett said those examples have “have nothing to do with this case,” since the court was only looking at the “timing” of the election, not the manner by which voters cast ballots.
Military and overseas voting law boosts majority opinion on mail ballot deadlines
A law passed by Congress in 1986 to make it easier for overseas military families and other Americans abroad to vote helped boost the Supreme Court’s mail ballot deadline ruling.
The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act seemed to build upon the reality that states have freedom to set post-election deadlines for those ballots, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted in her majority opinion.
While 14 states allow for post-Election Day ballot receipt for all their voters, another 15 states have extended deadlines for certain ballots submitted by military families on deployment and US citizens overseas, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The Republican National Committee, which brought the lawsuit, and the Trump administration, which had submitted arguments also against mail ballot grace periods, had disagreed on the question of how to handle UOCAVA ballot deadlines.
The RNC said those deadlines also ran afoul of the federal Election Day statute, while the Justice Department said UOCAVA ballots should be carved out of a ruling otherwise striking down grace periods for mail ballots. The majority opinion highlighted the disagreement.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the dissenting conservatives, would have struck down the UOCAVA deadlines, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh — who otherwise dissented from the majority — declined to join that part of Alito’s ruling.
Democrats, voting rights advocates hail mail voting decision
Democrats and voting rights advocates cheered the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold state laws counting mail ballots that arrive after election day, saying the court rejected an attempt by Republicans to restrict and disenfranchise voters.
“The RNC’s lawsuit attempted to rip away democratically enacted safeguards for millions, including U.S. service members,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin said in a statement.
The Supreme Court rejected arguments from Republicans that state laws allowing for late-arriving mail ballots postmarked by Election Day ran afoul of federal law. The lawsuit was brought by the Republican National Committee, challenging a Mississippi law that allowed for a grace period for ballots postmarked by Election Day that arrived late.
“Today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of our clients, Vet Voice Foundation and the Mississippi Alliance for Retired Americans, affirming a simple principle: a lawful ballot cast on time should be counted,” said Elisabeth Frost, litigation chair of the Elias Law Group, which represented Mississippi groups in the case.
Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat, said it was “a relief to see federal courts make clear that these attacks on mail and absentee voting are clearly illegal and unconstitutional.”
Alito's ballot deadline dissent embraces common Trump gripes about mail voting
Justice Samuel Alito’s dissenting opinion echoes the complaints that some Republicans — led by President Donald Trump — have made about mail voting, with Alito claiming that “Diverse sources have recognized that mail-in ballots increase the potential for fraud.”
Before Trump polarized mail voting with his baseless claims that it would bring mass fraud to the 2020 election, it was embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike. States with rural, sprawled out communities — communities that tend to lean Republican — were among the first to adopt expansive mail-in voting programs.
As Alito railed against the majority ruling for how it “compounds” the “vulnerabilities” of mail voting, he seized specifically on how the slower-paced process of counting mail ballots can dramatically shift which candidate is leading as those ballots are tabulated in the days and weeks after an election.
Just a few weeks ago, California was the focus of Trump’s ire — and the ire of even election experts not aligned with the GOP — for that dynamic in the count of its primary election.
“Even in the absence of partisan rhetoric, drawn-out ballot-counting ‘induces a large, significant decrease’ in Americans’ trust in elections,” Alito wrote. “By allowing States to continue receiving new ballots during these drawn-out processes, today’s decision will only exacerbate voters’ distrust.”
Samuel Alito does not appear on the bench for next-to-last opinion day
Days after an unusual exchange with a colleague during a release of opinions, Justice Samuel Alito did not appear on the bench Monday for the court’s penultimate release of opinions.
In response to questions from CNN, a court spokesperson said that Alito had “made an important personal commitment for today before the session was scheduled” and that he would take part in the court’s end-of-term conference meeting remotely.
All nine justices usually sit when the court is releasing opinions or hearing arguments, although several justices have missed appearances this term for various reasons.
Alito, a member of the court’s conservative wing, appeared to be taken aback Thursday when Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, read her dissent from the bench in a case involving asylum claims.
“There’s much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read,” Alito said, an unusual break from protocol during what is normally a highly scripted release of opinions.
On Friday, a court spokesperson said there had been a “misunderstanding” on Alito’s part over the choreography of the day.
“Justice Alito was notified in advance by Justice Sotomayor’s chambers that she would be reading a dissent from the bench,” the court spokesperson said Friday in a statement.
Trump says he will continue to fight E. Jean Carroll case despite Supreme Court loss
President Donald Trump said he would continue to fight his case against E. Jean Carroll despite the Supreme Court “surprisingly” denying his appeal in the civil case finding that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll.
“Surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to ‘review’ a Fake Case brought against me by a woman I never met (Decades old celebrity photo line, standing with her husband, does not count!). I will continue the fight against this Weaponization and Lawfare Case against me, including the ridiculous claim of Defamation, with all of my power and strength,” he wrote in a post on Truth Social.
A spokesman for the president’s legal team previously said in a statement, “President Trump will keep winning against Liberal Lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again.”
Trump renews call for "SAVE America Act" after Supreme Court loss
President Donald Trump again pressed for Congress to pass the “SAVE America Act” on Monday after the Supreme Court upheld state laws that count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day.
“In light of the tremendous loss in the Supreme Court today concerning Voter’s Rights, and the fact that ‘people’s’ votes are allowed to be counted LONG AFTER an Election is over, it is more important than ever to pass THE SAVE AMERICA ACT,” he wrote on Truth Social.
“There is no excuse for a politician,” Trump wrote, to oppose the federal elections overhaul bill, which would add strict new ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting. Trump has also ordered Republicans to add provisions that would end the widespread practice of no-excuse mail voting.
While the House passed earlier versions of the legislation, weeks of tumult fueled by Trump’s demands for it forced Speaker Mike Johnson to send his members home early last week because of a GOP rebellion over it on the floor.
And Trump on Monday specifically called out Republicans in the Senate — where the legislation does not have the votes to pass.
“Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, and Mitch McConnell must vote to SAVE OUR COUNTRY,” Trump wrote.
Supreme Court will issue birthright citizenship and transgender sports decisions on Tuesday
The Supreme Court will hand down the final opinions of its term on Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts announced from the bench at the end of the court’s Monday session.
The court still has three major issues outstanding: Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship as it’s been understood for more than a century, transgender sports bans, and a case about campaign finance limits. The transgender sports issue is technically two cases, so the court is expected to hand down four opinions.
Trump lauds win in Slaughter case
President Donald Trump celebrated his one win at the Supreme Court Monday, calling the decision to uphold his dismissal of Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission “one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers.”
“BIG WIN just moments ago at the Supreme Court, in the Slaughter Case, confirming Presidential Power in our Country to remove Executive Branch Officers and Agency Appointees, or Representatives, under Article II,” he wrote in a post on Truth Social.
“It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers,” he added.
He doubled down in a later post, saying, “90 years of precedent has been COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY OVERRULED,” and praised the ruling for “greatly increasing Presidential Power at a time when it is most needed!”
In a trio of dissents, conservative justices say court should have let Trump fire Cook for now
In three separate dissents, four conservative justices said the Supreme Court was wrong to let Lisa Cook stay in her job at the Federal Reserve while she challenges President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire her.
Justice Clarence Thomas said he didn’t think federal law required Trump to provide Cook with due process before she could be removed from her post, and that courts lack authority to wade into such issues.
In a separate dissent penned by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Alito said he would have allowed Trump to keep Cook out of her job while the litigation continued.
And Justice Amy Coney Barrett argued in a solo dissent that the court wrongly decided “to go big” by both permitting Cook to remain in her job while also leaving the door open to Trump eventually being able to fire her lawfully.
“But if the Court wanted to leave the President in that position, it should not have denied the stay,” Barrett wrote.
E. Jean Carroll lawyer says decision ends Trump's "quest to avoid accountability"
E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer issued a statement Monday shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision affirms once and for all the jury’s unanimous verdict that President Donald J. Trump sexually assaulted and defamed E. Jean Carroll,” her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said. “His multiple efforts to appeal that verdict have all failed and today’s ruling ends his quest to avoid accountability for his actions.”
Sotomayor: Trump "emerges with far greater power"
Justice Sonia Sotomayor read an impassioned dissent from the bench in the case allowing President Donald Trump vastly expanded powers to fire officials at federal agencies.
That case, Trump v. Slaughter, represented the conservative court’s full embrace of the idea that the president has vast powers over the executive branch.
Reading from the bench, Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal justice, said the court’s decision “promises only chaos.” And, she said, the decision would “fundamentally recalibrate the balance of power in the nation.”
Those words largely echoed her written dissent, which was joined by the court’s other two liberal justices — Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Sotomayor wrote that Congress had set up independent agencies to make decision about “sensitive tradeoffs and difficult judgment calls” best removed from politics.
“Today, the Court discards that democratic regime in favor of one that distorts the structure of Government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary, total executive control,” she wrote. “The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before.”
Kavanaugh on Cook opinion: "I would not risk destabilizing the US economy"
In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh described the potentially negative economic implications of ousting Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
“(T)here is a clear choice: Either the Federal Reserve may remain independent (with the Governors removable for cause, not at will), or it may not,” he wrote. “Even temporary uncertainty about the status of the Federal Reserve could spark political upheaval, including confusion about whether the President could immediately remove multiple Governors at will, as well as turmoil in the U.S. and world economies.”
Economists broadly agree that an independent Fed is essential for a stable US economy. The Federal Reserve addresses times of high inflation and high unemployment by swaying interest rates in either direction based on what economic figures show. A politicized Fed would mean the US central bank isn’t doing what’s in the best interest for the US economy.
Justice Clarence Thomas, however, disagreed with Kavanaugh’s premise that the Fed has been a good steward of the US economy, in his dissenting opinion.
“The Court credits this century of supposed success to the Board’s ‘independence’ from the President,” he wrote. “Many do not share the Court’s rosy appraisal of the past century.”
Cook: "I am grateful for this decision"
Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision in her high-stakes legal battle with President Donald Trump, in a statement released Monday.
“This was never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor,” she wrote.
Cook echoed the potentially disastrous consequences of the Fed losing its ability to set interest rates without political interference mentioned by Kavanaugh, the conservative Justice who sided with the liberal wing of the court. She said that the US central bank “must make all its policy decisions guided by evidence and independent judgment, free from political interference.”
Indeed, that’s the view of most mainstream economists: The Fed, as a steward of the US economy, should take cues from economic data, not political polls or a sitting president.
While the ruling keeps Cook in her post for now, it did not address whether the president had sufficient cause to remove her, instead addressing she had little due process.
A loss for Trump and a win for Trump
In an unusual circumstance, the Supreme Court handed down two opinions at the same time on Monday — one that was a loss for President Donald Trump and the other that was a win.
In the win, the court allowed the president to fire officials at independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission. In the other case, it barred Trump — for now — from firing a governor of the Federal Reserve.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has frequently drawn a distinction between the Fed and other federal agencies, including the FTC. And it did so again in its opinion Monday.
“For present purposes, it is sufficient to observe that any definition of ‘cause’ in this context must reflect the Federal Reserve’s unique historical status and role,” Roberts wrote for the majority. “Like its predecessors, the Federal Reserve operates at a deliberate remove from the ordinary political process. It sets its own budget, free of congressional control. It consists in large part of privately owned (and operated) entities, namely, the regional banks.”
The cases also involved slightly different legal questions. With the FTC, Trump removed a commissioner based on policy differences. At the Fed, Trump attempted to remove a governor based on allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied. In the Cook case, the court declined to resolve the underlying merits of Cook’s case but rather said that she was entitled to notice and a fair opportunity to respond to Trump’s claims.
For now, while that happens, Cook will remain in her job.
Cook and Slaughter opinions are contradictory, CNN analyst says
CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck called out an “obvious inconsistency” in the two opinions from the court Monday on Trump’s power to fire agency officials.
“It all comes down to the chief’s efforts to explain why the Federal Reserve is somehow unique when it comes to Congress’ power to insulate its leadership from direct presidential control,” he added. “And those efforts are, charitably, unpersuasive.”
“What’s really going on here is captured by Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Cook, which flags the justices’ concern about not wanting to destabilize the economy. That’s a perfectly reasonable policy argument, but it utterly undermines the analytical coherence of the theory on which Slaughter is based. If some agencies are too important to be left to direct presidential control, then the unitary executive theory isn’t a theory; it’s an excuse.”
Supreme Court expands Trump’s power to fire officials, overturning nearly century-old precedent
The Supreme Court on Monday backed President Donald Trump’s firing of a member of the Federal Trade Commission, a substantial win for the administration’s unprecedented effort to consolidate power within the executive branch that will have sweeping implications for parts of the government Congress intended to operate with independence from presidential politics.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for a 6-3 court.
Supreme Court allows Lisa Cook to remain at Fed in loss for Trump
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to immediately fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for a 5-4 majority.
The ruling is the most consequential case for the Fed’s future, for now fending off the politicization of an institution that’s responsible for being a technocratic steward of the US economy. In the end, the decision — which came months after the court struck down the president’s sweeping emergency tariffs — suggests that the longstanding principle of independence for the Fed was a line that not even Trump could cross.
“Under our precedents, Cook was entitled to notice and some opportunity to respond prior to her termination. That comes down to the words Congress chose, first in 1913, and then again in 1935,” Roberts wrote. “Of course, that is not to say that a Federal Reserve Governor is entitled to an audience with the President or a full-blown judicial trial.”
“Instead, all that is required is notice ‘to the officer of the charges made against him’ and ‘an opportunity to be heard in his defense,’” the chief justice added.
Roberts wrote that the “ultimate question of whether the president can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts.”
In the decision handed down Monday, Roberts wrote, “we have not addressed the facts, as they have yet to be found or analyzed under the relevant legal standards.” Rather, Roberts said, “we have simply addressed the parties’ arguments about the appropriate legal standards under which the facts must be evaluated.”
