Supreme Court Rejects Trump Administration Mail-In Voting Restrictions
- The United States Supreme Court has rejected an effort by the Trump administration to enforce key parts of an executive order that sought to tighten mail-in voting rules...
- The high court's decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that blocked federal agencies from implementing the new voting restrictions.
- The executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of confirmed U.S.
The United States Supreme Court has rejected an effort by the Trump administration to enforce key parts of an executive order that sought to tighten mail-in voting rules across 23 Democratic-led states ahead of the midterm elections, according to coverage from Al Jazeera, The New York Times, and other outlets.
Supreme Court Blocks Trump Mail-in Voting Order
The high court’s decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that blocked federal agencies from implementing the new voting restrictions. Mail ballots will continue to flow to voters normally. According to reporting by Fox News, the legal dispute centers on Executive Order 14399. President Donald Trump signed the order in March as part of an election integrity agenda.
Mandates for Homeland Security and Postal Service
The executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote and provide them to states.
It also instructed the U.S. Postal Service to establish new standards for mail-in ballots. Additionally, it directed the Justice Department to prioritize investigations into state and local election officials who issue federal ballots to individuals deemed ineligible.
State Coalition Challenges Presidential Authority
A coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia challenged the order in court. The group was led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington.
The plaintiff states argued that the U.S. Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering federal elections. They maintained that the president exceeded his authority by directing federal agencies to impose new voting requirements.
Federal Judge Issues November Injunction
In June, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that several provisions of the executive order likely exceeded presidential authority. She blocked federal agencies from implementing them in the plaintiff states through the Nov. 3 federal elections, as reported by Fox News.
The Department of Justice subsequently appealed that decision to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to pause the injunction.
Appeals Court and Supreme Court Rejection
As the district court reasoned, the executive order lays out a clear set of rapidly approaching deadlines by which states must coordinate with federal officials and comply with new voting procedures.
1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
The appeals court found that the plaintiff states were already facing looming election deadlines and had begun preparing for potential changes. The DOJ previously indicated it could seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court if it did not prevail at the appellate level. That move culminated in the justices declining to restore the administration’s plan.