Northwestern law experts on today’s SCOTUS decisions on the limits of presidential power and election law

• For Journalists
• News Releases
• Latest Releases
• News Release

Northwestern law experts on today's SCOTUS decisions on the limits of presidential power and election law

CHICAGO - The U.S. Supreme Court today handed down decisions in major cases, including clarification on the limits of presidential power and the validity of mail-in ballots when received after Election Day.

Northwestern law experts are available to media. If you'd like to arrange an interview with any of the professors below, please email Shanice Harris at [email protected].

In Trump v. Cook, with a vote of 5-4, the court agreed with the lower court's decision. The decision allows Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors, to stay in office while her challenge to President Trump's efforts to fire her moves forward. The Trump administration has attempted to fire Cook on allegations of mortgage fraud, which Cook vehemently denies. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsch, and Amy Coney Barrett wrote dissenting opinions, respectively.

In Trump v. Slaughter, the court ruled 6-3 - in favor of the Trump administration - overturning a key 1935 Supreme Court ruling which upheld restrictions on the president's power to fire Federal Trade Commission members.

After Trump removed Rebecca Slaughter from her position as a member FTC, Slaughter sued and argued federal law requires the president to cite a legally binding reason for her dismissal. The court today determined the "for cause" removal provision for the FTC is contrary to the Constitution's separation of powers, allowing Slaughter's firing to proceed. It gives Trump sweeping new authority over federal agencies that were intended to operate independently.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.

In Watson v. RNC, the court upheld the Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by, and received within, five days of Election Day. The vote was 5-4, with Justice Alito dissenting, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, and in part by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The court also ruled in Chatrie v. U.S., with a vote of 6-3. Justice Alito dissenting, joined in part by Justice Thomas and in part by Justice Barrett.

This case was a challenge to the use of a "geofence warrant," a warrant that directed Google to provide law enforcement with location data for cellphone users who were near a Richmond-area bank when it was robbed in 2019. The court ruled that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about their cell phone's location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information.

The U.S. Supreme Court will take the bench on Tuesday, June 30 to inevitably hand down their decisions on the remaining pending cases for the 2025-26 season, which include the birthright citizenship case.

Professors available on Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook

James Pfander, Owen L. Coon Professor of Law, has expertise on the role of judicial systems in constitutional democracies and federal jurisdiction.

Daniel Rodriguez, Harold Washington Professor of Law, has expertise in the areas of administrative law, local government law, statutory interpretation, federal and state constitutional law and the law-business-technology interface.

James Speta, Elizabeth Froehling Horner Professor of Law, has research interests in telecommunications and internet policy, antitrust, administrative law and market organization.

Heidi Kitrosser, William W. Gurley Professor of Law, is an expert on the constitutional law of federal government secrecy and on separation of powers and free speech law more broadly. Her expertise is in constitutional law, free speech, separation of powers, government secrecy and unitary executive theory.

Professors available on Watson v. RNC

Michael Kang, Class of 1940 Professor of Law, is a nationally recognized expert on campaign finance, voting rights, redistricting, judicial elections and corporate governance.

Professors available on Chatrie v. U.S.

Ronald Allen, John Henry Wigmore Professor of Law, is an internationally recognized expert in the fields of evidence, criminal procedure and constitutional law.