AFPI Celebrates Wins, Laments Setbacks in Supreme Court Today
WASHINGTON, D.C—The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has released statements from experts Chad Mizelle, senior fellow for Law & Justice, and J. Kenneth Blackwell, chair for Election Integrity, in response to the Supreme Court decisions released today in the cases of Trump v. Slaughter, Trump v. Cook, and Watson v. RNC. AFPI filed amicus briefs with the Court in these cases in support of the authority of the Executive Branch, and election security.
AFPI celebrates the decision of the Court in Trump v. Slaughter, a case about who really controls the Executive Branch. The case began when President Trump removed a Federal Trade Commission commissioner, only to be told that the law prevents him from doing so unless he could provide specific “cause.” That raised a bigger question: can unelected officials exercising executive powers keep their jobs even after the President decides to remove them?
At its core, this case was about accountability. The President is elected by the American people to run the Executive Branch—but many powerful officials in Washington make decisions that affect everyday life while being insulated from presidential control. The Supreme Court stepped in and held that this violates separation of powers principles, stating, “[t]he FTC unquestionably exercises executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” The Supreme Court at last made clear what should have always been obvious, those who execute the law cannot operate beyond the President’s authority.
The decision reinforces a simple principle: if someone is exercising executive power, they must ultimately answer to the President, and to the people who elected him.
“This case is about something simple: who is in charge of the executive branch,” said Chad Mizelle, AFPI senior fellow for Law & Justice. “The Supreme Court made clear that unelected officials cannot hold power without accountability. When the President is responsible for enforcing the law, he must also have the authority to remove those who do it on his behalf. That’s how our Constitution was designed to work.”
In a different case, Trump v. Cook, the Supreme Court’s decision today amounts to a temporary impediment to the President’s executive authority. This case tests whether, and based on which procedures, the President can remove a Federal Reserve Governor. The case began after President Trump removed Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook over alleged misconduct tied to a mortgage application. Lower courts blocked that removal, allowing Cook to remain in office while litigation proceeded. Today, the Supreme Court declined to disturb that ruling, leaving Cook in her position while litigation continues. The Court went out of its way to ensure clarity in what today’s decision means: “To be clear, the ultimate question of whether the President can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts. In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts, as they have yet to be found or analyzed under the relevant legal standards. Rather, we have simply addressed the parties’ arguments about the appropriate legal standards under which the facts must be evaluated.”
“This decision, while merely a setback, is a disappointing departure from the Constitution’s clear structure of executive authority,” said Chad Mizelle, senior fellow for Law & Justice at AFPI. “The President cannot fulfill his duty to ensure the faithful execution of the laws if he is blocked from holding senior officials accountable. Allowing unelected bureaucrats to remain in power despite presidential removal undermines both democratic accountability and the separation of powers.”
The Supreme Court also issued a concerning decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee (RNC), ruling that existing federal law does not prevent states from counting ballots received after Election Day. This case arose from a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted if received after Election Day, so long as they were postmarked by Election Day. The Republican National Committee challenged that rule, arguing that federal law requires ballots to be both cast and received by Election Day—not days later. At its core, the case asked a simple question: does Election Day actually mean Election Day?
Despite the Court’s ruling, AFPI holds that ballots should be received and counted by the close of Election Day. When the deadline for ballots to be received extends beyond Election Day, and differs widely by state, public confidence in the validity of the election plummets. Justice Alito in his dissent states the devastating legal consequence plainly: “when ballots received after Election Day are added to the set of ballots that dictate the election's outcome, the electorate's choice does not occur on election day, and the federal election-day statutes are violated.”
“For more than a century, federal law, written by Congress, has established a single, national Election Day to ensure a quick and timely ballot count and protect our elections from potential interference,” said J. Kenneth Blackwell, chair for Election Integrity at AFPI. “The Court has now irresponsibly blessed a system contrary to what is written in our law, where states can count ballots that arrive days – and in some places, weeks – after that date. This decision will erode public trust, create confusion due to information delays and statistical shifts that look suspicious to voters. This ruling does not best serve the American people and does not uphold fairness in our electoral process.”
A bipartisan commission led by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker found that absentee voting was “the largest source of potential voter fraud” in American elections. AFPI believes that the power to determine election law ultimately resides with Congress and state legislatures and will continue to work with lawmakers on the state and federal level to restore clear, uniform and enforceable laws which secure our ballot boxes and protect the very foundation of self-governance awarded to the American people.