The Supreme Court opened a path for the potential implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much of the policy can be put in place before the fast-approaching midterm elections. The conservative-led high court paused a lower court’s ruling that had blocked key parts of the order, which President Trump initially issued in March. The interim win applies to 23 mainly Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C., that had sued the administration.
Supreme Court Opens Path for Trump Mail-In Voting Restrictions
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority did not decide the underlying legality of Trump’s order. Instead, the unsigned order ruled that the states that sued did not have the legal right to challenge it at that time. The decision marked the third time the administration asked the high court to intervene in the fight over mail ballots ahead of the midterms.
The three liberal-leaning justices publicly dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissenting opinion that the rule lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges.
Legal Hurdles and State-Level Fallout
Despite the high court’s action, a separate nationwide ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani in Boston continues to block the U.S. Postal Service from following Trump’s directives. The administration filed an appeal seeking to lift restrictions as ballots began going out to voters. Solicitor General John Sauer stated in a court filing that ballots have already begun to be mailed in North Carolina, and more States will begin the mailing process as the injunction remains in place — including Alabama on September 9 and at least five States the week of September 13.
Federal attorneys argued that the lower orders block the government’s ability to finalize and implement proposed policies for the upcoming federal elections in November. Meanwhile, a dozen Republican-leaning states supported the federal government, while Democratic states and voting rights groups argued that the changes are unconstitutional. New York Attorney General Letitia James called the decision a painful setback
but vowed it would not be the final word.
Legal experts emphasized the fast-moving nature of the litigation. This is just the first inning of a very fast nine-inning game,
said Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame University.
Logistical Challenges for Election Officials
State and local election officials raised concerns about their ability to comply with new Postal Service directives so close to the November 3 midterms. The requirements include unique barcodes and submitting online portal information about residents who vote by mail, including their names, addresses, and individualized barcodes. Officials stated in court filings that ballot envelopes had already been ordered and printed.
Sauer defended the administration’s timeline in court filings, stating: Simply put, the best way to address respondents’ fears about inability to comply with the Rule is to grant an immediate administrative stay of the order, followed by a full stay pending further review.
He added that such a stay would remove the improper cloud of uncertainty
cast by the district court and make clear that compliance with the rule is mandatory.
The executive order calls for the Department of Homeland Security to develop state lists of adult U.S. citizens, for the Postal Service to obtain lists of eligible mail voters from states, and for USPS to deliver mail-in ballots only to individuals on those lists. However, the filing noted that eligibility for mail-in and absentee voting will continue to be governed by state law.
