Just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court dealt President Donald Trump a setback in one of the nation’s most closely watched election cases, court watchers began asking a startling question:

Did Trump actually come out ahead?

At first glance, Monday looked like a defeat for the president.

In a closely divided 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court refused to strike down state laws allowing mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day to be counted even if they arrive several days later.

The ruling preserved voting procedures used by several states and was immediately celebrated by voting-rights advocates as an important victory for absentee and mail-in voters.

But before the political dust had settled, attention shifted to another opinion released the very same day—one that some legal observers believe could prove even more consequential.

The second case, Trump v. Slaughter, dramatically expanded presidential authority over independent federal agencies.

For nearly a century, Supreme Court precedent had limited a president’s ability to remove leaders of certain independent government bodies without cause.

Monday’s decision changed that.

Legal analysts say the ruling could give presidents far broader authority to replace officials overseeing agencies that were deliberately designed to operate independently from direct White House control.

Among those agencies is one that could have enormous implications for future elections:

The United States Postal Service.

White House correspondent Jacob Bogage was among the first to highlight what he described as one of the ruling’s most significant practical consequences.

“This also has big potential mail-in voting consequences,” he wrote.

According to Bogage, the decision could allow a president to remove members of the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors—the body responsible for selecting the postmaster general and overseeing the nation’s mail system.

That possibility immediately drew attention because mail delivery remains essential to absentee and vote-by-mail elections across the country.

The timing is particularly significant.

Current Postmaster General David Steiner has already become the center of a growing political controversy after backing a proposed Trump administration rule that would prevent the Postal Service from delivering mail ballots in states refusing to provide certain voter information requested by the federal government.

Voting-rights organizations quickly condemned the proposal, arguing it would exceed the Postal Service’s traditional role and interfere with state election administration.

A federal judge in Boston recently blocked enforcement of the executive order while litigation continues.

Even so, Monday’s Supreme Court ruling has prompted fresh questions about how much influence future presidents could exercise over Postal Service leadership if they gain broader authority to replace members of its governing board.

Supporters of expanded presidential authority argue that elected presidents should have greater control over executive branch agencies responsible for carrying out federal policy.

Critics warn that weakening the independence of institutions like the Postal Service could increase political pressure on agencies expected to operate without partisan interference.

Monday’s pair of decisions illustrates how Supreme Court rulings can reshape public policy in unexpected ways.

While headlines initially focused on Trump’s loss in the mail-ballot case, legal experts soon pointed out that the broader impact of the second decision may ultimately prove far more significant.

Instead of changing how ballots are counted directly, the ruling could influence who oversees one of the country’s most critical election-related institutions.

For Trump, who has repeatedly criticized mail-in voting and advocated sweeping election reforms, that possibility has already become a major topic of discussion among legal analysts and political observers.

Whether those concerns ultimately materialize remains uncertain.

Any attempt to restructure Postal Service leadership would almost certainly trigger additional legal challenges and intense political scrutiny.

The administration’s proposed mail-ballot regulations are already tied up in federal court, and further litigation appears inevitable.

Still, Monday demonstrated just how quickly the legal landscape surrounding American elections can change.

One Supreme Court decision protected existing state mail-ballot laws.

Another potentially expanded presidential authority over the institution responsible for delivering those very ballots.

For many election experts, that combination could shape the future of mail voting long after this year’s legal battles come to an end.

The immediate headline may have been a loss.

But beneath the surface, some court watchers believe the president may have gained something far more powerful—a new legal avenue that could influence how America’s mail voting system is governed for years to come.

Whether that possibility becomes reality will likely be decided not only in future courtrooms, but also in the increasingly high-stakes political battles surrounding the nation’s elections.