The day is not over, but so far, the High Court has handed three losses to Trump, but one significant victory. After today, every member of every independent commission serves at his pleasure.

It refused to hear his appeal to overturn a $5 million judgment against Trump for sexually assaulting the writer E. Jean Carroll. A far larger award ($83 million) by a New York court for Trump’s repeated defamation of Carroll has also been appealed and will be heard in another lawsuit. The victory today is a huge win for Carroll. No votes were recorded.

By 5-4, it upheld a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day but received after the day. Trump has repeatedly claimed that mail-in ballots should be banned outright, but that’s now a moot question. The Court concluded that states set the rules for election, as it says in the Constitution, not the President. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the decision, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and the three liberal justices.

By 5-4, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett joined the three liberal justices to reject Trump’s attempt to fire Lisa Cook as a member of the Federal Reserve Board because she did not receive due process and because the Fed is special among independent federal commissions. As the entity that sets monetary policy, it must be immune from political interference. To date, Commissioner Cook has spent $1.3 million on her defense, contributed by two nonprofits. The process is the punishment.

Cook’s case will now go back to lower courts, which will decide whether she committed criminal fraud on mortgage applications. These are the same charges leveled against New York State Attorney General Letitia James and Senator Adam Schiff, which has thus far failed to secure a conviction.

The information about mortgages was leaked by Bill Pulte, a MAGA loyalist who heads the Housing Finance Agency and was recently installed by Trump as acting Director of National Intelligence. Pulte lacks the qualifications for the job, having had no experience in intelligence, but he will oversee the nation’s deepest secrets from more than a dozen intelligence agencies, including the FBI and the CIA. It is widely assumed that he will continue to dig up dirt on Trump’s enemies to advance Trump’s retribution campaign.

But in a different decision, a majority gave the President the power to fire members of other “independent” commissions and agencies, overturning a precedent from 1932 known as “Humphrey’s Executor”:

The New York Times explained:

In a major expansion of presidential authority, the Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for President Trump to fire independent government regulators despite federal laws meant to protect their jobs. But the justices separately carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve, and prevented the president from immediately removing Lisa D. Cook from the powerful central bank.

The court’s 6-to-3 ruling to broadly allow the firings, with the three liberal justices dissenting, represented a significant shift in power from Congress to the president and could usher in a drastic change to the federal government’s structure by giving the president more direct control over independent agencies.

The case specifically tested whether Mr. Trump could oust Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, simply because she does not align with his agenda and despite a law that says the president can remove commissioners only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

But the decision has implications for more than two dozen agencies — including those charged with protecting consumers, workers, the environment and nuclear safety — that have traditionally been insulated from complete presidential control by laws with similar protections.

In a separate decision, however, a divided court blocked the president from ousting Ms. Cook, saying she had not been given an opportunity to refute the administration’s unproven allegations of mortgage fraud, the rationale Mr. Trump had offered in attempting to fire her.

Former top Fed and Treasury officials and Ms. Cook’s legal team had warned the Supreme Court that allowing Mr. Trump to remove her while litigation was underway would spur economic turmoil and undermine the longstanding political independence of the central bank.

On Lisa Cook, the opinion said:

The Court rejects the Government’s halfhearted contention that Cook in fact received due process. At minimum, Cook was entitled to some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response, and a deadline by which a response would be due.

If Trump tries again to remove her, she will get due process and more legal bills.

Next week: birthright citizenship and transgender rights.