Monday Reads: Supreme Justice

“Old man seen wandering around Washington DC babbling to an imaginary crowd.” John Buss, @repeat1968

Good Day, Sky Dancers!

The Supreme Court of the United States released some interesting decisions today. For a change, some of them are likely to frustrate Orange Caligula. My guess is he’ll be on social media all day ranting. At least, we don’t have to hear the ongoing lies about that failure of a fair he did over the weekend.

One case sent mixed messages. I’ll start with that.

This is from Politico. “Supreme Court widens Trump’s power to fire agency leaders — except the Fed. The exception for the Federal Reserve is a blow to Trump’s efforts to prod the central bank to lower interest rates.” At least he won’t be able to increase the inflation rate through that nonsense.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted President Donald Trump sweeping power to control executive branch agencies, while effectively exempting the Federal Reserve.

The justices voted 6-3, along ideological lines, to scuttle a 91-year-old precedent that said Congress can limit the president’s ability to fire Senate-confirmed leaders to instances of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

But in a separate ruling, the high court voted 5-4 to rebuff Trump’s bid to carry out his firing Lisa Cook, a Fed member appointed by President Joe Biden. The decision, which allows Cook to remain in her post while litigation continues over the effort to dismiss her, is a blow to Trump’s efforts to prod the Fed to lower interest rates.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinions in both cases.

The court’s conservative majority has been whittling away for years at the 1935 ruling known as Humphrey’s Executor, which allowed Congress to limit presidents’ power to fire the leaders of certain agencies.

The justices finished off Humphrey’s Monday in a case brought by Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, whom Trump attempted to fire in March 2025.

“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it,” Roberts wrote. “This is not a close case….The FTC unquestionably exercises executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested. It follows, then, that Slaughter served as the President’s subordinate at the FTC—and that the President was entitled to cut her tenure short.”

When the White House dismissed Slaughter last year, it provided no detailed reason, simply telling her in an email that she was terminated effective immediately because her continued service was “inconsistent with Administration’s priorities.”

Did I mention that Roberts is probably the worst Chief Justice ever? He’s not the least transparent about his politics, which include racism and the destruction of checks on the executive branch that are centuries old. This analysis is by Melissa Quinn of CBS News. “Supreme Court expands presidential firing power, overturning 90-year-old ruling.”

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission are unconstitutional and overturned a 90-year-old decision that allowed Congress to shield members of certain independent agencies from being fired by the president at will.

The decision from the high court expands the president’s power over many independent boards and commissions, which Congress had insulated from political pressure by saying their members could only be removed by the president for cause.

In a 1935 decision in a case known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which involved removal protections for the FTC, the Supreme Court said Congress could restrict the president’s ability to fire officials from multi-member agencies at will.

But the ruling from the high court’s conservative majority in the case Trump v. Slaughter overturns that 90-year-old decision and marks the culmination of a years-long weakening of the New Deal-era precedent.

The ruling was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, joined by the other conservative justices. The three liberals dissented, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her dissent from the bench, a rare occurrence that signals strong disagreement with a decision. Roberts wrote that limits on the president’s ability to fire those who wield executive power on his behalf infringe on his constitutional authority.

The FTC of today, the court’s majority found, “unquestionably” exercises executive powers and therefore must be under the president’s control.

“Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work,” Roberts wrote. “Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

And, of course, all this diddling with election laws and voting access basically limits the accountability of said President to said people. That’s my major takeaway. And, of course, Orange Caligula is already ignoring the parts he doesn’t like. This is from the New York Times. “Trump Renews Threat to Fire Fed Governor in Wake of Court Loss. The president promised to “take appropriate action immediately” against Lisa D. Cook, a Fed governor.”

President Trump renewed his intention to try and fire Lisa D. Cook from the Federal Reserve on Monday, saying he would look for a way to oust her after the Supreme Court blocked his previous attempt to fire a sitting governor at the central bank.

In a social media post, Mr. Trump described the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision as “procedural,” adding that he would “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!”

Mr. Trump took the extraordinary step of trying to fire Ms. Cook from the Fed last year, claiming that she had misrepresented her finances in order to obtain more favorable mortgage terms. Ms. Cook has not been charged with a crime, and has denied any wrongdoing.

She challenged her firing in court, as her lawyers sought to argue that the attempted dismissal fit a pattern by Mr. Trump, who has sought to pressure the Fed into lowering interest rates. In late September, a federal judge allowed Ms. Cook to continue serving in the role as she contested the legality of the firing, prompting the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., kept that decision in place. The majority found on Monday that the president had not properly afforded Ms. Cook the ability to respond to the allegations against her.

But the decision still left much unanswered. While the justices emphasized the uniquely important nature of the Fed as an independent body, they did not clearly define the conditions under which Mr. Trump could fire a Senate-confirmed governor.

“To be clear, the ultimate question of whether the president can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority.

“In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts, as they have yet to be found or analyzed under the relevant legal standards,” he continued. “Rather, we have simply addressed the parties’ arguments about the appropriate legal standards under which the facts must be evaluated.”

It’s just a matter of time before Trump starts raging on this decision, as covered by the AP. “Supreme Court rules states can count late-arriving mailed ballots, rejecting Trump-led challenge.” Mark Sherman has the lede on this.

The 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.

So, Orange Caligula’s latest hissy fit this morning about the court’s decisions is this one, as reported by Politico‘s Emilio Perez Ibarguen. Maybe with all this ranting, he’ll blow a gasket and join Mitch McConnell in whatever ether he’s disappeared into. “Trump doubles down on SAVE America Act after Supreme Court loss on mail voting. The president’s desire for a signature elections bill has all but frozen Hill Republicans’ agenda.”

President Donald Trump intensified his efforts to pass his signature elections bill on Monday after the Supreme Court handed the president a loss in his push to add restrictions to mail voting.

The decision — where the Supreme Court ruled that states may choose to count ballots that arrive after Election Day, so long as they are either postmarked before then or otherwise deemed cast on time — sparked a flurry of activity Monday among the president and his allies.

“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,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump has advocated for severely restricting mail voting, which he has claimed without evidence is responsible for widespread fraud.

The Trump administration has also sought to empower the Postal Service to withhold ballots if states don’t hand over their voter rolls, though an executive order instructing the agency to do so was batted down by a federal judge.

A core tenet of the SAVE America Act, according to the president, would be to drastically limit when voting by mail is available to citizens with few exceptions, alongside requiring voters to present photo identification and proof of citizenship

The president has fixated on the SAVE America Act, even as some Senate Republicans insist the legislation simply does not have enough votes. Trump called out five senators as “Hold Outs” on the bill, naming Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Monday’s ruling upheld a Mississippi law allowing election officials to count mail-in ballots received up to five days after Election Day. A bipartisan mix of over a dozen states allow at least some ballots that arrive after Election Day to still be counted so long as they are postmarked before then. More states extend that grace period to certain military and overseas voters.

Okay, so my big question today is where the fuck is Mitch McConnell? Why aren’t we getting any status reports on his health? Is the Republican Party hiding something? We have to go to the local news just to get a hint of why he’s not voting this week, and whether he’s even alive at this point. This is from the Lexington Herald Leader. “Few details known on Mitch McConnell’s health 2 weeks after hospitalization.” This is reported by Hannah Pinski.

The public has received few details surrounding Sen. Mitch McConnell’s health condition after he was admitted into the hospital two weeks ago. A spokesperson for McConnell’s office did not have any updated information regarding the Kentucky senator’s health to share as of Monday.

McConnell, 84, was hospitalized June 14, but his staff did not give details about his condition at the time, other than to say he was receiving “excellent care.” During the Republican Party of Kentucky’s Lincoln Day Dinner in Lexington June 20, Rep. Andy Barr told reporters after the event that he’d exchanged text messages with McConnell, saying “he’s good.” McConnell’s office has not confirmed whether he is still hospitalized. On June 22, spokesperson Stephanie Penn said he would not vote in the Senate that week but is working “closely” with staff as his health continues to recover. As of Wednesday, the Senate is not in session and will reconvene July 13. McConnell has held his Senate seat since 1985 and is in his seventh term. From 2007 to 2025, he served as the leader of the Senate GOP. He is not seeking reelection this year.

The reason that this is important and is leading to conspiracy theories about proof of life is that his death or resignation would mean a special election would need to be held. This would drain Republican Resources away from the Midterm elections and possibly further endanger their chances of holding on to majorities in both houses. I’m not into conspiracy theories, but all this is extremely suspicious IMHO.

There are more decisions coming tomorrow. The Hill‘s Jack Schonfeld has the list and the associated ramifications. Let me just add that these are big and also controversial topics. “Supreme Court to hand down final decisions Tuesday: Here’s what’s left.”

Here’s what the court will hand down beginning 10 a.m. EDT Tuesday:

Birthright citizenship

President Trump’s banner immigration policy hangs in the balance.

The Supreme Court is set to decide whether Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship can stand, or if they are unconstitutional.

It’s a major test for the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The president’s executive order, which has not gone into effect amid legal challenges, limits birthright citizenship to children with at least one parent with citizenship or permanent legal status.

It upends the conventional understanding that the 14th Amendment leaves room for only narrow exceptions, like babies born on enemy warships and the children of foreign ambassadors.

The president, who attended the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the case, hasn’t sounded optimistic about the case.

“This decision by the Supreme Court is a very big one,” Trump said in the Oval Office last month. “They’ll probably rule against me, because they seem to like doing that.”

Transgender athlete bans

The Supreme Court is preparing to say its piece on the national debate surrounding school sports and transgender athletes.

…

Campaign finance

The Supreme Court will rule on a GOP-backed challenge to a campaign finance provision.

At issue is how much money candidates can spend in coordination with their political party.

It’s going to be a busy conscientious week.

What’s on your Reading, Action, and Blogging list today?