The Supreme Court ruled Monday that President Trump’s executive order tightening the rules around mail-in voting can be implemented ahead of the November midterm elections.
The 6-3 decision — with liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting — marks a major victory for Trump, but appears to leave room for future legal challenges that could delay the president’s order.
In its ruling, the high court overturned a lower court order that blocked the Trump administration from enforcing the March 31 mail-in voting order in response to a lawsuit filed by 23 Democratic-led states, who argued the directive unconstitutionally infringes on their authority to administer elections.
The Supreme Court did not rule on whether Trump’s order was lawful, but determined it was too early for states to sue over it because harms must be “concrete” rather than “conjectural or hypothetical.”
The majority further noted that federal courts are barred from adjudicating disputes dependent on “contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.”
The injunction lifted by the high court had applied to the 23 states challenging the president’s order.
Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was part of the lawsuit, vowed that the “fight is far from over.”
“This decision is a painful setback, but it will not be the final word,” James said in a statement. “The right to vote is sacred, and no administration should be allowed to put that right in jeopardy by making it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballots.
“This fight is far from over. We are exploring our legal options.”
Similarly, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro pledged, “We’ll see the Trump Administration in court.”
“Not so fast,” the democratic swing-state governor wrote on X after the Supreme Court ruling. “Today’s SCOTUS decision does NOT deal with the substance of Trump’s unconstitutional Executive Order and does not mean his illegal attempt to restrict mail-in voting will go forward.
“Donald Trump does not run elections here in Pennsylvania — or in any state.” --->READ MORE HERE
 |
| Anthony Acosta / PEXELS |
‘The Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.’
he U.S. Supreme Court agreed to pause a lower court blockade on President Trump’s mail-in voting executive order on Monday. The vote was 6-3, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
In its per curiam ruling, the high court granted the Trump administration’s emergency application to stay a June ruling by Massachusetts-based District Judge Indira Talwani. The Obama appointee and past Democrat donor issued an injunction barring the order from taking effect ahead of the 2026 midterms in the states that challenged the directive.
As described by Fox News, the president’s executive order “directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile a list of all adult U.S. citizens living in each state and would direct [the U.S. Postal Service] to deliver mail ballots only to individuals appearing on the lists.”
The administration appealed Talwani’s injunction to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals but was rejected. The government did, however, score a win in a separate challenge to the order in a case before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The D.C.-based court ruled late last month that challengers’ lawsuit was unreviewable at that time because the named agencies hadn’t implemented their official rules as required by the president’s order.
The Postal Service published a rule mandating that states “provide lists of voters who received mail-in ballots” on Friday, according to Fox.
In its Monday ruling, the Supreme Court found that the Trump administration is likely to succeed on the merits of its arguments that Talwani lacked jurisdiction to issue a judgment on the matter. It also ruled that the government is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims that Talwani’s injunction “is causing it irreparable harm, and that the equities do not favor leaving the injunction in place while [its] appeal is pending.”
The majority went on to note that its ruling on the administration’s application “does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful.” While “time will tell” on that point, the justices affirmed that “the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.”
“[F]or the reasons discussed, th[e] injunction is likely to irreparably harm the Government if it remains in place while the appellate process runs its course,” the court ruled. “Accordingly, the application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON in No. 26A124 and by her referred to the Court is granted.” --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment