The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year that imposes restrictions on mail-in voting. In a 6-3 ruling, the high court granted emergency relief sought by the administration, lifting a lower court’s injunction that had blocked key directives in 23 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia.
Supreme Court Clears Way for Trump Mail Voting Order Implementation
The unsigned majority opinion stated that the states filed their lawsuit prematurely because the order had not yet been carried out, meaning the states had not suffered an injury that allowed the litigation to proceed at this stage. However, the court emphasized that its disposition does not rule on the legality of the underlying order itself. On that score, time will tell,
the majority wrote.
Provisions of the Executive Order and Agency Actions
Signed by Trump in March, the executive order focuses on several distinct provisions regarding federal elections and mail-in ballots:
- Instructing the Department of Homeland Security to create lists of adult U.S. citizens in each state and send those lists to states at least 60 days before a federal election.
- Commanding the U.S. attorney general to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of state and local officials who issue federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a federal election.
- Requiring the U.S. Postal Service to develop new procedures and deliver mail-in ballots only to individuals on voter-eligibility lists.
- Requiring election officials to have certain barcodes on their mail ballot envelopes.
The Postal Service subsequently released a final rule for federal ballot mail in response to the directive. The USPS stated the rule is primarily intended to assist election officials and law enforcement in identifying anomalous incidents, adding that the agency will not play any role in determining voter eligibility, maintaining voter rolls, or counting ballots.
Legal Battles and Lower Court Rulings
The emergency appeal before the Supreme Court followed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts, who sided with a group of states and voting-rights groups challenging the directive. Talwani ruled that the Constitution gives power to state legislatures and Congress, not the president, to set federal election rules. An appeals court subsequently declined to pause Talwani’s order.
Twelve Republican-led states, led by Alabama, joined the case on the Trump administration’s side. The administration argued that every day the injunction remained in place irreparably harmed the government, noting that the start of mail-in and absentee voting in some states is just one month away.
Meanwhile, the court’s three liberal justices dissented. In a 23-page dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the majority of taking its eye off the ball and needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections
. Legal experts and officials noted that further legal challenges are expected to play out as the November midterm elections draw closer.
Worth a look
- Trump Administration Proposes Permanent $103,265 Fee for H-1B Visas
- GTA 6 Developer Rockstar Subpoenas Microsoft and Discord Over Leaks
- Supreme Court Pauses Lower Court Ruling on Trump Mail Voting Order (newsy-today.com)
- US Supreme Court Clears Way for Trump’s Mail-in Voting Restrictions (world-today-journal.com)
