Court Rules

Challenger Dan Sullivan had been booted from ballot, but supreme court ruled he can compete against senator of same nameA man with the same name and party affiliation as Senator Dan Sullivan, a Republican, is qualified to run for the seat and ordered election officials to place him on Alaska’s primary ballot in August, the state supreme court ruled Monday.The ruling came hours after arguments on Monday and just days after state court Judge Thomas Matthews found the division of elections had “abused its discretion” in booting the challenger Sullivan from the ballot. The supreme court, in a brief ruling, affirmed Matthews’ decision but sent back to the division the issue of how the challenger should be listed on the ballot, “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law”. Continue reading...

• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballots can still be counted even if they are received after the polls close on election night. • The decision defies the expectations of Ohio Republicans, who had preemptively passed legislation to eliminate the grace period for arriving ballots. • This ruling is significant as it maintains voter access and counters GOP efforts to require all votes to be submitted by election night.

• The Supreme Court rejected a Republican-led legal challenge that sought to ban the counting of mailed ballots arriving after Election Day. • The ruling upholds laws in the District of Columbia and more than half of U.S. states that allow late-arriving ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by the election date. • This decision prevents a significant shift in voting rules that Donald Trump and his allies had targeted ahead of the midterm elections.

• The Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump cannot fire Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, protecting her position within the central bank. • Conversely, the Court granted the president broader authority to remove officials from other independent agencies, specifically green-lighting the firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. • This split decision balances the independence of the Federal Reserve against the president's desire for greater executive control over various federal regulatory bodies.

• The US Supreme Court ruled that the president has the authority to fire leaders of independent agencies, overturning the 1935 landmark precedent *Humphrey’s Executor v United States*. • The decision stemmed from a legal challenge regarding the White House's March 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Slaughter. • This ruling significantly expands executive power by removing long-standing legal protections that limited presidential control over independent regulatory bodies.

Law enforcement’s use of warrants sweeping smartphone location data requires privacy protections, court rulesUS supreme court decisions – live updatesThe US supreme court has ruled that law enforcement’s use of sprawling warrants that sweep up smartphone location data requires privacy protections under the fourth amendment, in a boost to critics who view their use as an unconstitutional dragnet.Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion. Continue reading...

Case focused on White House’s March 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca SlaughterUS supreme court decisions – live updatesSign up for the Breaking News US emailThe US supreme court ruled that Donald Trump can fire leaders of independent agencies or commissions, ending 90 years of court precedent that curbs executive power.The vote in the case of Trump v Slaughter is 6-3, with dissents from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. Continue reading...

Justices find president does not have constitutional authority to fire Federal Reserve governor without causeUS supreme court decisions – live updatesSign up for the Breaking News US emailThe US supreme court has ruled that Donald Trump’s firing of a Federal Reserve governor was unconstitutional, in a landmark ruling that limits a president’s authority over the central bank.In its opinion, the court said that Trump does not have the constitutional authority to fire a Fed governor without cause. Continue reading...