#heritage-foundation

Trump Loses Mail Ballot Case at Supreme Court 5-4 — His Own Appointee Barrett Writes the Majority Opinion — Then SCOTUS Denies His Carroll Appeal, Meaning He Must Pay $5 Million for Sexual Abuse

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Watson v. Republican National Committee that states may continue counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day, provided they were postmarked on time — rejecting the RNC's argument that 19th-century federal election-day statutes require ballots to be received by Election Day. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's own appointee, wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and the three liberal justices. Barrett wrote: "The electorate's choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received." She added: "At bottom, plaintiffs' theory is that because we are governed by 19th-century election-day laws, we are also governed by 19th-century voting practices." The ruling reversed the Fifth Circuit and protects laws in more than half the states and D.C. that permit late-arriving mail ballots. Alito dissented, warning of "lamentable consequences." Trump called it a "tremendous loss" and renewed his demand for the SAVE America Act — the voter ID bill the Senate has already rejected twice (four Republicans joined Democrats both times), that Trump held a bipartisan housing bill hostage over, that he canceled his own DNI nominee's hearing over, and that Senate Majority Leader Thune says "doesn't have the votes." The same day, the Court denied Trump's appeal in the E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse case without comment, meaning the $5 million verdict — for a jury finding that Trump sexually abused Carroll — stands. Nearly one in three Americans voted by mail in 2024. The noncitizen voting "crisis" the SAVE Act claims to address: Heritage Foundation's own database documents 68 cases out of over one billion ballots cast in 40 years.

White House Secretly Pressured the Board Meant to Protect Civil Servants — Sherk Told MSPB Head to Follow "the Company Line," Board Then Broke with Decades of Precedent, and 50,000 Workers Lost Protections

A New York Times investigation by Michael Schmidt reveals that the Trump White House secretly pressured the Merit Systems Protection Board — the independent agency created after Nixonian abuses to protect federal employees from political firings — into adopting the administration's theory that the president can fire any civil servant at will. White House aide James Sherk, author of the Schedule F memo and a man who has said "every federal employee should serve at the pleasure of the president," met with acting MSPB head Henry Kerner while Kerner was being considered for a permanent position. Sherk told Kerner he was expected to follow the Office of Legal Counsel's opinions on unitary executive theory — described by experts as "little different from calling a federal judge and telling him how to rule." The MSPB then broke with decades of precedent and ruled that it could weigh in on constitutional questions in a way that effectively endorsed the president's power to fire employees without cause. This followed Trump firing Democratic MSPB member Cathy Harris in February 2025 — converting the bipartisan board into one controlled by his appointees — and the Supreme Court blocking her reinstatement via shadow docket. On March 9, 2026, the Schedule Policy/Career rule took effect, stripping civil service protections from up to 50,000 federal workers, making them at-will employees who cannot appeal firings to the MSPB, cannot access statutory whistleblower protections, and cannot challenge their reclassification. An initial executive order reclassified about 8,000 positions. When DOJ prosecutor Maureen Comey (daughter of James Comey) was fired via an Article II letter, a federal judge ruled she could bypass the compromised MSPB and sue directly in federal court — finding the constitutional basis for her firing placed her case "outside the universe" Congress intended the MSPB to resolve. The D.C. Circuit dissent warned: "Under my colleagues' reasoning, it appears that no independent agencies may lawfully exist in this country."