The briefing for Tuesday, June 30.

The Supreme Court on Monday dramatically expanded presidential power by ruling that presidents can fire heads of independent federal agencies at will, despite federal laws requiring cause for dismissal. The 6-3 decision overturned a 91-year-old precedent limiting executive authority. However, in a 5-4 vote, justices blocked President Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, saying the administration failed to provide sufficient due process for her to contest the removal over mortgage fraud allegations she denies.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, held that protections from at-will removal are "contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution." The ruling extends beyond the Federal Trade Commission to other agencies including the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Trump voiced approval on Truth Social, calling it "one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers."

The Fed exception reflects the central bank's unique role in setting interest rates and monetary policy. By law, presidents can only remove Fed governors "for cause," a protection intended to shield the bank from political pressure. The court said the administration must prove its allegations against Cook in lower courts, where she will have a chance to challenge the accusation. Legal experts say the dual rulings could supercharge policy swings between administrations while preserving some independence for the nation's monetary authority.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can count mail ballots arriving after Election Day, rejecting a Republican-led challenge backed by President Trump. The 5-4 decision upholds laws in more than half the states and the District of Columbia permitting ballots to be counted several days after the election if postmarked by Election Day. The ruling spares officials from changing ballot procedures just months before the 2026 midterm congressional elections.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority joined by Chief Justice Roberts and the three liberal justices, said federal laws setting a single Election Day "leave open when those votes must be received." She noted that Congress could change the law if uniform deadlines are needed. In just over half the affected states, the extended deadlines apply only to military and overseas voters. Trump has persistently attacked such provisions, falsely claiming widespread fraud was responsible for his 2020 defeat.

The decision provides certainty for election administrators across the country who have been preparing systems under existing state laws. Voting rights advocates praised the ruling for protecting ballot access, particularly for military members serving abroad and voters in rural areas where mail delivery can be slower. Republicans had argued that varying state deadlines undermine election integrity, but the court found no constitutional requirement for ballots to arrive on Election Day itself.

The Supreme Court announced Monday it will consider Arizona's strict voting laws passed after the 2020 election, including a proof-of-citizenship requirement for state and local elections. The Republican-controlled legislature enacted the measures in 2022 as part of a nationwide wave of similar proposals following Trump's false claims of widespread voter fraud in his narrow Arizona defeat to Joe Biden. Lower courts had found the restrictions violated federal voting laws.

The Trump administration joined the appeal after taking office. The high court is expected to hear arguments in the fall and issue an opinion after the November midterm elections, meaning the current rules will remain in effect through this election cycle. In 2024, the justices gave the GOP a partial victory on the emergency docket, allowing Arizona to require proof of citizenship for state and local registration but not for federal races.

The case will have broad implications beyond Arizona. Similar citizenship verification laws have been proposed or enacted in multiple states, and the court's interpretation of federal election law could either validate or block such measures nationwide. Voting rights groups argue the restrictions disproportionately affect minority voters, students, and elderly citizens who may lack readily available documentation, while Republicans contend they are necessary to prevent non-citizens from voting despite minimal evidence of such fraud occurring.

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham said Monday the state could pursue billions of dollars in civil damages after revelations that DEA agents repeatedly allowed fentanyl shipments to flow into communities as part of efforts to build bigger criminal cases. The Democratic governor vowed to take her outrage "right to the White House and Congress" to ensure the risky law enforcement strategy is no longer used. The state attorney general has already launched a criminal investigation into whether federal officials broke state law.

According to the Associated Press, DEA agents monitored but did not seize fentanyl shipments between 2023 and 2025, a strategy whistleblower David Howell said violated Justice Department rules intended to safeguard the public. The largest documented case occurred in March 2025—two months into Trump's second term—when agents learned of but did not intercept a 1.8-million pill shipment. The DEA initially denied the allegations but later requested an investigation by the Justice Department's independent watchdog.

The revelations are particularly troubling for New Mexico, where overdose deaths surged 21% last year even as they declined 14% nationally. Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller called fentanyl the city's "No. 1 challenge," driving crime, homelessness, and straining healthcare resources. "Using us in some sort of uninformed, undisciplined experiment that's literally killing our people—that's what this is," he said. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have faced criticism, with the unseized shipments spanning both presidencies despite the DEA's public "One Pill Can Kill" awareness campaign emphasizing the substance's deadly nature.

Democratic attorneys general and governors in 25 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration Monday over new guidance narrowing medical frailty exemptions in Medicaid work requirements. The lawsuit argues that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' interim rule released earlier this month oversteps last summer's law and will prevent eligible Americans from accessing necessary care. Plaintiffs say the narrow interpretation creates harmful coverage barriers as states rush to implement new systems by the January deadline.

Under the new restrictions starting January 1, Medicaid expansion enrollees aged 19 to 64 must work or do community service at least 80 hours monthly or attend school at least half-time. The controversial CMS rule says someone's medical condition must "significantly impair" their ability to meet these requirements to qualify for exemption—a definition that goes beyond the law's text. The rule requires patients to prove their condition meets this standard when renewing coverage in 2028, but states say CMS has not clarified what documentation would suffice.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said the rule puts thousands of residents at risk: "New Yorkers who are battling cancer, living with a disability, managing a serious mental health condition, or recovering from addiction should be able to get the health care they need without being buried in paperwork." States allege the change came without warning after months of regular communications with CMS, forcing them to update implementation plans with insufficient guidance. The Trump administration has promoted the requirements as commonsense measures to eliminate government freeloading and preserve benefits for those who need them most.

The United States, Canada, and Mexico are heading toward a July 1 deadline to decide the future of the USMCA free trade pact with all signs pointing to negotiations extending past that date. Trade representatives from the three countries will meet formally Wednesday for the first time since the review began, but officials from all nations say they don't expect a resolution. President Trump recently said he sees the deal "expiring immediately," arguing the US would be better off without it, though the pact has broad support with 75% of Americans viewing it as beneficial to the economy.

The USMCA, negotiated during Trump's first term, underpins $1.6 trillion in annual trade between the three countries and supports millions of jobs across North America. It has offered Canada and Mexico exemptions from the bulk of US tariffs on most goods. However, Trump's tariffs and Canada's retaliatory measures have complicated negotiations. The US has presented separate lists of demands to each country, with Mexico and the US announcing multiple formal bilateral talks while Canada's discussions have been less public.

US demands of Canada include greater access for American producers to Canada's dairy market, removal of Canadian taxes on major US streaming companies, and reversal of provincial boycotts on US alcohol imposed in response to Trump's tariffs. For Canada, a major sticking point is US tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney insists Canada won't sign a bad deal, and business leaders say their priority is lower tariffs and clarity on trade's future. Canadian officials expect talks to continue past the deadline, though it's unclear for how long, while Mexico and the US have scheduled another round of talks for later in July.