States can count late-arriving mailed ballots
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can count ballots that arrive after Election Day, a persistent target of President Donald Trump.
The 5-4 decision rejected a Republican-led attack on laws in more than half the states and the District of Columbia that permit mailed ballots to arrive and be counted some number of days after the election, provided they are postmarked by Election Day. The outcome spares officials the headache of changing their ballot rules just a few months before the 2026 midterm congressional elections.
In just over half those states, the more forgiving deadlines apply only to ballots cast by military and overseas voters.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the court’s majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices.
Federal laws setting a single Election Day “leave open when those votes must be received,” Barrett wrote.
Congress could change the law, she said. “If varied deadlines for ballot receipt similarly call for a national solution, the American people must choose it through their elected representatives,” Barrett wrote.
The legal challenge was part of Trump’s broader attack on most mail balloting, which he has said breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and years of experience in numerous states. Trump has repeatedly claimed that his loss to Joe Biden in 2020 resulted from fraud even though more than 60 court decisions and his own attorney general said that argument had no merit.
Trump called the court ruling a “tremendous loss” and renewed his call for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which has made it through the House of Representatives but not the Senate.
“There is only one reason to oppose — CHEATING!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The court heard arguments in March in a case from Mississippi pitting the state against Trump’s Republican administration and the Republican and Libertarian parties. At issue was whether federal law sets a single Election Day that requires ballots to be both cast by voters and received by state officials.
The federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down a Mississippi law allowing ballots to be counted if they arrive within five business days of the election and are postmarked by Election Day.
The outcome is a “sigh of relief” for a lot of election administrators, said Stephen Richer, a Republican and the former top election administrator in Arizona’s Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix.
A ruling in favor of the Republican National Committee “would have created a whole host of administrative challenges for the affected states,” said Richer, who is now a legal fellow at the Cato Institute.
RNC officials did not immediately respond Monday to email and telephone requests for comment.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can count ballots that arrive after Election Day, a persistent target of President Donald Trump.
The 5-4 decision rejected a Republican-led attack on laws in more than half the states and the District of Columbia that permit mailed ballots to arrive and be counted some number of days after the election, provided they are postmarked by Election Day. The outcome spares officials the headache of changing their ballot rules just a few months before the 2026 midterm congressional elections.
In just over half those states, the more forgiving deadlines apply only to ballots cast by military and overseas voters.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the court’s majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices.
Federal laws setting a single Election Day “leave open when those votes must be received,” Barrett wrote.
Congress could change the law, she said. “If varied deadlines for ballot receipt similarly call for a national solution, the American people must choose it through their elected representatives,” Barrett wrote.
The legal challenge was part of Trump’s broader attack on most mail balloting, which he has said breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and years of experience in numerous states. Trump has repeatedly claimed that his loss to Joe Biden in 2020 resulted from fraud even though more than 60 court decisions and his own attorney general said that argument had no merit.
Trump called the court ruling a “tremendous loss” and renewed his call for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which has made it through the House of Representatives but not the Senate.
“There is only one reason to oppose — CHEATING!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The court heard arguments in March in a case from Mississippi pitting the state against Trump’s Republican administration and the Republican and Libertarian parties. At issue was whether federal law sets a single Election Day that requires ballots to be both cast by voters and received by state officials.
The federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down a Mississippi law allowing ballots to be counted if they arrive within five business days of the election and are postmarked by Election Day.
The outcome is a “sigh of relief” for a lot of election administrators, said Stephen Richer, a Republican and the former top election administrator in Arizona’s Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix.
A ruling in favor of the Republican National Committee “would have created a whole host of administrative challenges for the affected states,” said Richer, who is now a legal fellow at the Cato Institute.
RNC officials did not immediately respond Monday to email and telephone requests for comment.
Court says Fed’s Cook can keep her job
for now, but it upholds other firings
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dramatically expanded presidential power, upholding President Donald Trump’s firings of the heads of independent federal agencies with one important exception: the Federal Reserve.
The justices allowed Fed governor Lisa Cook to stay in her job while she fights the Republican president’s effort to fire her over allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied.
But other than at the nation’s central bank, with its role of setting interest rates, the court held that presidents have free rein to fire agency heads at will, despite federal laws that require a cause for such dismissals and a 91-year-old decision that had limited executive authority.
With the six conservative justices in the majority, the nine-member court jettisoned its unanimous decision in Humphrey’s Executor that had limited when presidents can fire agencies’ board members — in part to try to ensure decision-making free of political influence.
“We hold that such protection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.
The justices ruled in the case of former Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, whom Trump fired without cause despite a provision of federal law that requires a reason. The logic of the decision extends to other agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, where Trump also has fired board members.
Trump voiced his approval in a Truth Social post. “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 wrote.
The court already had signaled its support for the Trump administration’s position, over the liberals’ objection, by allowing Slaughter and the board members of other agencies to be removed from their jobs even as their legal challenges continued.
No president before Trump had sought to wrest control of the agencies that regulate wide swaths of American life, including nuclear energy, product safety and labor relations. But at arguments in Slaughter’s case in December, the six conservatives, including three appointed by Trump, seemed more concerned about issuing a ruling that would endure than handing too much power to Trump.
Their rhetoric was reminiscent of the presidential immunity case in 2024 that allowed Trump to avoid prosecution for his efforts to undo his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. The court is writing a decision “for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said then.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent she summarized aloud in the courtroom, said the ruling could lead to “submission, instability, and even oppression.”
“The president, to be sure, emerges with more power than ever before. That power was given to him by six justices on this court, not the people or the Constitution,” Sotomayor said.
In Cook’s case, the court voted 5-4 to reject the Trump administration’s effort to get Cook out of her job now. Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices were in the majority.
Allowing Cook to be ousted now, Roberts wrote, “would allow the President to remove a member of the Federal Reserve at any time, for any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after. That would turn for-cause protection into little more than at-will employment.”
Cook, who was nominated to the Fed’s Board of Governors by Biden, can continue in her post at least as long as her lawsuit challenging her firing goes on, the court said. The Trump administration is appealing a lower-court ruling in her favor.
Besides trying to fire Cook, Trump had threatened to fire former Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell if he didn’t leave the board when his term as chairman ended in mid-May. Powell has remained as a governor, even as Kevin Warsh has replaced him as chairman.
Judges on lower courts have allowed Cook to remain in her post as one of seven central bank governors.
The true motivation for trying to fire Cook, Trump’s critics say, is the Republican president’s desire to exert control over U.S. interest rate policy. If Trump succeeds in removing Cook, the first Black woman to be a Federal Reserve governor, he could replace her with his own appointee and gain a majority on the Fed’s board. The case is being closely watched by Wall Street investors and could have broad impacts on the financial markets and the U.S. economy.
Cook said her case was “never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor.”
“It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people. That is the most fundamental obligation of a Federal Reserve governor,” Cook said in a statement.
Trump has been dismissive of worries that cutting rates too quickly could trigger higher inflation. He wants dramatic reductions so the government can borrow more cheaply and Americans can pay lower borrowing costs for new homes, cars or other large purchases, as worries about high costs have soured some voters on his economic management.
The Fed has left its key rate unchanged this year, but a growing chorus of policymakers is expressing concern about persistently high inflation and suggesting the central bank could raise its benchmark rate by the end of this year or leave it unchanged.
While Cook’s case was under review at the high court, Trump dramatically escalated his confrontation with the Fed. The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation of Powell and served the central bank with subpoenas.
The investigation ended in late April, the department said. The announcement cleared a major roadblock to the confirmation of Warsh as Powell’s successor.
The case against Cook stems from allegations she claimed two properties, in Michigan and Georgia, as “primary residences” in June and July 2021, before she joined the Fed board.
Such claims can lead to a lower mortgage rate and smaller down payment than if one of them was declared as a rental property or second home.
Those applications, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in January, are evidence of “gross negligence at best” and give Trump reason to fire her. In any event, he argued, courts shouldn’t be reviewing his decision and Cook has no right to a hearing.
Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dramatically expanded presidential power, upholding President Donald Trump’s firings of the heads of independent federal agencies with one important exception: the Federal Reserve.
The justices allowed Fed governor Lisa Cook to stay in her job while she fights the Republican president’s effort to fire her over allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied.
But other than at the nation’s central bank, with its role of setting interest rates, the court held that presidents have free rein to fire agency heads at will, despite federal laws that require a cause for such dismissals and a 91-year-old decision that had limited executive authority.
With the six conservative justices in the majority, the nine-member court jettisoned its unanimous decision in Humphrey’s Executor that had limited when presidents can fire agencies’ board members — in part to try to ensure decision-making free of political influence.
“We hold that such protection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.
The justices ruled in the case of former Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, whom Trump fired without cause despite a provision of federal law that requires a reason. The logic of the decision extends to other agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, where Trump also has fired board members.
Trump voiced his approval in a Truth Social post. “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 wrote.
The court already had signaled its support for the Trump administration’s position, over the liberals’ objection, by allowing Slaughter and the board members of other agencies to be removed from their jobs even as their legal challenges continued.
No president before Trump had sought to wrest control of the agencies that regulate wide swaths of American life, including nuclear energy, product safety and labor relations. But at arguments in Slaughter’s case in December, the six conservatives, including three appointed by Trump, seemed more concerned about issuing a ruling that would endure than handing too much power to Trump.
Their rhetoric was reminiscent of the presidential immunity case in 2024 that allowed Trump to avoid prosecution for his efforts to undo his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. The court is writing a decision “for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said then.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent she summarized aloud in the courtroom, said the ruling could lead to “submission, instability, and even oppression.”
“The president, to be sure, emerges with more power than ever before. That power was given to him by six justices on this court, not the people or the Constitution,” Sotomayor said.
In Cook’s case, the court voted 5-4 to reject the Trump administration’s effort to get Cook out of her job now. Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices were in the majority.
Allowing Cook to be ousted now, Roberts wrote, “would allow the President to remove a member of the Federal Reserve at any time, for any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after. That would turn for-cause protection into little more than at-will employment.”
Cook, who was nominated to the Fed’s Board of Governors by Biden, can continue in her post at least as long as her lawsuit challenging her firing goes on, the court said. The Trump administration is appealing a lower-court ruling in her favor.
Besides trying to fire Cook, Trump had threatened to fire former Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell if he didn’t leave the board when his term as chairman ended in mid-May. Powell has remained as a governor, even as Kevin Warsh has replaced him as chairman.
Judges on lower courts have allowed Cook to remain in her post as one of seven central bank governors.
The true motivation for trying to fire Cook, Trump’s critics say, is the Republican president’s desire to exert control over U.S. interest rate policy. If Trump succeeds in removing Cook, the first Black woman to be a Federal Reserve governor, he could replace her with his own appointee and gain a majority on the Fed’s board. The case is being closely watched by Wall Street investors and could have broad impacts on the financial markets and the U.S. economy.
Cook said her case was “never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor.”
“It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people. That is the most fundamental obligation of a Federal Reserve governor,” Cook said in a statement.
Trump has been dismissive of worries that cutting rates too quickly could trigger higher inflation. He wants dramatic reductions so the government can borrow more cheaply and Americans can pay lower borrowing costs for new homes, cars or other large purchases, as worries about high costs have soured some voters on his economic management.
The Fed has left its key rate unchanged this year, but a growing chorus of policymakers is expressing concern about persistently high inflation and suggesting the central bank could raise its benchmark rate by the end of this year or leave it unchanged.
While Cook’s case was under review at the high court, Trump dramatically escalated his confrontation with the Fed. The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation of Powell and served the central bank with subpoenas.
The investigation ended in late April, the department said. The announcement cleared a major roadblock to the confirmation of Warsh as Powell’s successor.
The case against Cook stems from allegations she claimed two properties, in Michigan and Georgia, as “primary residences” in June and July 2021, before she joined the Fed board.
Such claims can lead to a lower mortgage rate and smaller down payment than if one of them was declared as a rental property or second home.
Those applications, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in January, are evidence of “gross negligence at best” and give Trump reason to fire her. In any event, he argued, courts shouldn’t be reviewing his decision and Cook has no right to a hearing.
Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime.
Justices reject president’s push to toss
$5 million verdict in E. Jean Carroll
sexual abuse case
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a push by President Donald Trump to throw out a jury's $5 million finding that he sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll at a New York City department store in the mid-1990s and later defamed her.
The high court declined to take up the case in a brief, unexplained order, as is typical. There were no noted dissents. Trump also plans to appeal another $83.3 million verdict awarded to Carroll by a different jury after a second defamation trial, his lawyers have said.
The decision comes as the court hands down its biggest opinions, including a ruling that expands his firing power over the federal bureaucracy with the exception of the Federal Reserve.
Trump called the decision to pass on the Carroll case "surprising" in a social media post, and he said he would continue to fight the defamation claims. "This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for," he wrote.
Trump's lawyers had argued that allegations leading to the verdict were propped up by "highly inflammatory" evidentiary rulings, including those that allowed the testimony of two other women who accused Trump of sexual abuse decades ago. Trump has denied all three women's allegations.
Trump's attorneys argued the judge broke federal evidence rules in the case. They framed it as a distraction from Trump's unique duties as president, though the verdict came before his return to the White House.
"This mistreatment of a President cannot be allowed to stand," Attorney Justin D. Smith wrote in court documents. Trump, a Republican, has since nominated Smith to be an appeals court judge. His lawyers called the case "Liberal Lawfare" in a statement on Monday.
Carroll's lawyers had urged the justices to pass on the case. They argued that the women's testimony was relevant because the allegations were similar and that Judge Lewis Kaplan's decisions were in line with others around the country. "This question is not worthy of review," wrote attorney Roberta Kaplan, who is not related to the judge.
Monday's decision affirms the jury's verdict will stand, she said in a statement Monday. "His multiple efforts to appeal that verdict have all failed and today's ruling ends his quest to avoid accountability for his actions," she said.
Carroll, a longtime advice columnist and former TV talk show host, testified at a 2023 trial that Trump turned a friendly encounter in spring 1996 into a violent attack in the dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury retailer across the street from Trump Tower in Manhattan. The jury also found Trump liable for defaming Carroll when he denied her allegation in 2022.
The Associated Press does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.
Trump has successfully fended off other hefty court judgments, including a New York civil fraud penalty of over $500 million thrown out by a New York appeals court. The Supreme Court also granted him broad immunity from criminal prosecution in 2024, though it later narrowly rejected his bid to halt sentencing in his New York hush money case.
————————
Associated Press writers Jennifer Peltz in New York and Michelle Price in Washington contributed to this report.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a push by President Donald Trump to throw out a jury's $5 million finding that he sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll at a New York City department store in the mid-1990s and later defamed her.
The high court declined to take up the case in a brief, unexplained order, as is typical. There were no noted dissents. Trump also plans to appeal another $83.3 million verdict awarded to Carroll by a different jury after a second defamation trial, his lawyers have said.
The decision comes as the court hands down its biggest opinions, including a ruling that expands his firing power over the federal bureaucracy with the exception of the Federal Reserve.
Trump called the decision to pass on the Carroll case "surprising" in a social media post, and he said he would continue to fight the defamation claims. "This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for," he wrote.
Trump's lawyers had argued that allegations leading to the verdict were propped up by "highly inflammatory" evidentiary rulings, including those that allowed the testimony of two other women who accused Trump of sexual abuse decades ago. Trump has denied all three women's allegations.
Trump's attorneys argued the judge broke federal evidence rules in the case. They framed it as a distraction from Trump's unique duties as president, though the verdict came before his return to the White House.
"This mistreatment of a President cannot be allowed to stand," Attorney Justin D. Smith wrote in court documents. Trump, a Republican, has since nominated Smith to be an appeals court judge. His lawyers called the case "Liberal Lawfare" in a statement on Monday.
Carroll's lawyers had urged the justices to pass on the case. They argued that the women's testimony was relevant because the allegations were similar and that Judge Lewis Kaplan's decisions were in line with others around the country. "This question is not worthy of review," wrote attorney Roberta Kaplan, who is not related to the judge.
Monday's decision affirms the jury's verdict will stand, she said in a statement Monday. "His multiple efforts to appeal that verdict have all failed and today's ruling ends his quest to avoid accountability for his actions," she said.
Carroll, a longtime advice columnist and former TV talk show host, testified at a 2023 trial that Trump turned a friendly encounter in spring 1996 into a violent attack in the dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury retailer across the street from Trump Tower in Manhattan. The jury also found Trump liable for defaming Carroll when he denied her allegation in 2022.
The Associated Press does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.
Trump has successfully fended off other hefty court judgments, including a New York civil fraud penalty of over $500 million thrown out by a New York appeals court. The Supreme Court also granted him broad immunity from criminal prosecution in 2024, though it later narrowly rejected his bid to halt sentencing in his New York hush money case.
————————
Associated Press writers Jennifer Peltz in New York and Michelle Price in Washington contributed to this report.
Alan Dershowitz’s $300 million suit
against CNN won’t be revived
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to revive a $300 million defamation lawsuit filed against CNN over its coverage of a prominent attorney’s remarks made while defending President Donald Trump during his 2020 impeachment.
The majority declined to take up the case in a brief, unexplained order. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented, calling on the court to reconsider the legal standards for public figures who claim defamation.
Alan Dershowitz said the news network aired only a portion of the comment made during his defense of the president, distorting his meaning to make him look like he’d “lost his mind,” according to court documents.
The network said that multiple outlets had interpreted his remarks in a similar way, and Dershowitz couldn’t show CNN was trying to mischaracterize what he said.
In his appeal, Dershowitz had urged the court to reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The landmark First Amendment case that made it harder for public figures to win libel lawsuits because it requires proof that an outlet knowingly published something false, or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.
Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law School professor and legal commentator, was part of Trump’s defense team during his impeachment trial over allegations that Trump wanted political favors from Ukraine in return for U.S. military aid. Trump was acquitted by the Senate.
Dershowitz responded to a question at one point by saying, “the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal.” Providing arms to Ukraine, he said, isn’t illegal.
He alleged that CNN only played what he said moments later: “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and, mostly, they are right, your election is in the public interest, and if the president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
Dershowitz said the edit made it seem like he was arguing a president could avoid impeachment for illegal acts as long as he was doing it to get reelected – a concept his original suit called “preposterous and foolish on its face.”
CNN countered by saying it did air his full remarks during its live coverage, and invited him on twice more to expand on his meaning.
Lower courts tossed out the suit, finding that Dershowitz hadn’t shown CNN acted with “actual malice” in its reporting, making it fall short of the standard set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to revive a $300 million defamation lawsuit filed against CNN over its coverage of a prominent attorney’s remarks made while defending President Donald Trump during his 2020 impeachment.
The majority declined to take up the case in a brief, unexplained order. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented, calling on the court to reconsider the legal standards for public figures who claim defamation.
Alan Dershowitz said the news network aired only a portion of the comment made during his defense of the president, distorting his meaning to make him look like he’d “lost his mind,” according to court documents.
The network said that multiple outlets had interpreted his remarks in a similar way, and Dershowitz couldn’t show CNN was trying to mischaracterize what he said.
In his appeal, Dershowitz had urged the court to reconsider New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The landmark First Amendment case that made it harder for public figures to win libel lawsuits because it requires proof that an outlet knowingly published something false, or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.
Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law School professor and legal commentator, was part of Trump’s defense team during his impeachment trial over allegations that Trump wanted political favors from Ukraine in return for U.S. military aid. Trump was acquitted by the Senate.
Dershowitz responded to a question at one point by saying, “the only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal.” Providing arms to Ukraine, he said, isn’t illegal.
He alleged that CNN only played what he said moments later: “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and, mostly, they are right, your election is in the public interest, and if the president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
Dershowitz said the edit made it seem like he was arguing a president could avoid impeachment for illegal acts as long as he was doing it to get reelected – a concept his original suit called “preposterous and foolish on its face.”
CNN countered by saying it did air his full remarks during its live coverage, and invited him on twice more to expand on his meaning.
Lower courts tossed out the suit, finding that Dershowitz hadn’t shown CNN acted with “actual malice” in its reporting, making it fall short of the standard set by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
