What we're watching
• The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt to immediately fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
• The court, meanwhile, expanded the president’s power to fire officials, overturning the nearly century-old precedent Humphrey’s Executor.
• 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.
• 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.
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.
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.”
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.”
Conservative minority says Mississippi's mail ballot grace period "postpones" election
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for himself and three conservative colleagues, led the dissent in the Supreme Court’s mail ballot case. He argued that the federal election law should have overridden the laws enacted by Mississippi.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined all of that dissent and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined parts of it.
“The acceptance of these late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement,” Alito wrote.
Barrett's majority opinion calls mail ballot case "narrow"
Writing for a 5-4 court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett described the dispute as a “narrow” one, focused on the Mississippi law that counts “ballots postmarked by election day, but received up to five days later.”
“The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt and we cannot add to the words Congress chose,” Barrett wrote, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberals.
A lower court had said that post-election grace periods for mail ballots were unlawful because of the federal laws that set a uniform November election day.
Barrett’s opinion rejected the lower court’s reasoning that those laws required ballots to be received on the federal election day.
“The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received,” she wrote.
Supreme Court says states may count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day
The Supreme Court on Monday upheld state laws that count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, an unexpected rebuff of President Donald Trump’s longstanding attacks on mail-in voting.
The court rejected Republicans’ arguments that the practice, embraced by more than a dozen states, runs afoul of federal laws setting the November Election Day. The president has repeatedly and falsely equated lengthy vote counts with “cheating,” including in a recent NBC interview in which he complained about ballot processing in the Los Angeles mayor’s race.
The Supreme Court’s opinion only addresses state laws that require that late-arriving ballots to be postmarked by Election Day — which is the requirement for the vast majority of states with post-election grace periods for mail ballots.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the three liberals in the majorty.
Supreme Court to review the legality of mass voter purges in the weeks before an election
The Supreme Court will review the legality of mass voters purges in the final weeks before an election, as part of a larger case the justices are taking up examining the methods Arizona uses to keep non-citizens off the voter rolls.
The dispute will not be resolved before the midterms, but it elevates efforts by Republicans to tighten voting rules amid President Donald Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of mass election fraud.
The justices will be examining the scope of the National Voter Registration Act, a 1993 law that governs how states maintain their voter rolls. While much of the case concerns Arizona’s specific procedures for vetting voters’ citizenship status, the dispute also tees up a question with nationwide implications about when election officials can purge rolls.
Supreme Court agrees to hear parental case involving runaway transgender youth
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up an appeal from parents in Washington who are seeking to challenge state laws permitting runaway minors to receive transgender care without parental notice.
By granting the appeal, the 6-3 conservative court is taking up transgender rights for the third time in as many years.
At issue are a series of provisions Washington enacted in 2023 that the state said are intended to address “the crisis of transgender youth homelessness.” One of those provisions waives a homeless shelter’s requirement to notify parents if a minor is seeking transgender care.
A group of parents said that and other provisions violated their parental rights. Lower courts, including the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, concluded that the parents did not have standing to sue because they could demonstrate a concrete injury based on potential future harm. The parents asked the Supreme Court to let their lawsuit proceed.
“Viewing parents as the problem, Washington passed laws that deliberately target certain parents by supplanting them with the state in the context of gender-confused runaway minors,” the parents told the high court in their appeal.
Washington officials said the plaintiffs have misinterpreted the law and have offered only “a series of hypothetical events to claim that they could, possibly, be injured at some unspecified future time.”
The court is likely to hear arguments in the case by the end of the year and hand down a decision by next summer.
Supreme Court declines to hear Alan Dershowitz's defamation appeal against CNN
The Supreme Court Monday declined to take up an appeal from lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who accused CNN of defamation for its coverage of him during President Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial.
The decision came over the dissent from two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Supreme Court declines to hear Trump appeal of E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse verdict
The Supreme Court Monday declined to take up an appeal from President Donald Trump over a $5 million verdict and finding that he sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll, a decision that means the president will now have to pay the magazine columnist.
Trump transferred $5.5 million to a court-controlled account in 2023 following the jury verdict so Carroll is likely to receive the cash relatively quickly.
SCOTUS has already issued more 6-3 decisions this term than last year
The Supreme Court has already reached an inauspicious milestone as it races to finish its most divisive pending cases in coming days: It has handed down more 6-3 decisions along ideological lines than it did for the entire term that ended last year.
The Court includes six conservative justices and three liberal justices.
As it navigates a charged political atmosphere during President Donald Trump’s second term and endures sharp criticism from the left and right, the court has already split into conservative and liberal camps in 10 decisions this year — four more than last year — before it even gets to major cases on presidential power and transgender rights.
Some of those decisions, including on whether Trump may fire officials at independent federal agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, may also divide the court along ideological lines. The justices are scheduled to drop their next batch of opinions on Monday.
Seven of the nine decisions the court released last week were 6-3. Those included two major immigration decisions that sided with Trump, a ruling that barred a Rastafarian man from suing prison officials who violated a federal law when they cut his dreadlocks and a decision that permitted Exxon to sue over property confiscated by the Cuban government in 1960.
The court also split 6-3 in an important Second Amendment case that struck down a Hawaii law that banned guns on private property open to the public, such as retail stores, where the owner hadn’t explicitly condoned the carrying of firearms.
Running of the intern season
Technology is now faster than ever. Interns can be faster.
Decision days at the Supreme Court in June bring the traditional “running of the interns.”
In the SCOTUS press room, thick pamphlets are handed to reporters, then to interns waiting in the hallway.
Before a reporter could scan the entire decision and send it over to a correspondent, the intern has already left the courthouse and is running down Maryland Ave NE, headed for the Senate Swamp, where journalists like CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid analyze the paper copies live on air.
The run takes an intern past photographers, other media setups, into a grass field in front of the Capitol and to the swamp — a term for the small area where impromptu press-conferences are held, and one of the few spots on Capitol grounds where tripods can be set up.
It’s all a reminder of how opaque the high court is. No cameras are allowed in the courtroom for arguments or opinions, so journalists are the first to tell the public what the justices have done.
How the Lisa Cook case got to the Supreme Court
The closely watched case began when President Donald Trump attempted to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve in August based on allegations that she had committed mortgage fraud.
Trump announced the firing on social media, posting a letter that accused Cook of “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct” because she claimed two different homes as her primary residence in 2021.
She has denied any wrongdoing and has called the charges “manufactured.”
Cook, who was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022, sued three days later.
A federal court in temporarily blocked Cook’s removal, finding that Trump had not identified anything relating to her conduct in her job to indicate she was harming the public. An allegation of wrongdoing before she took office, the court reasoned, didn’t count as cause. A federal appeals court in Washington, DC, declined to put that order on hold and it reasoned that officials like Cook have a right to due process before being fired for cause.
Trump filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court in September.
Supreme Court has previously shielded the Fed from Trump
The Supreme Court has long treated the Fed differently.
Even as the conservative court has allowed President Donald Trump to remove officials at other independent federal agencies, it has drawn a
line of protection around the independence of the Federal Reserve, which plays a significant role in steering the US economy by setting interest rates.
To justify the different treatment for the Fed, the court said in an opinion last year that its unique structure and “distinct historical tradition” made it different from other independent federal agencies.
Critics, even those who support independence for the Fed, have questioned the logic of the court allowing Trump to fire the leaders of some independent agencies but not the Fed.
