Supreme Court allows Trump to implement key parts of order restricting mail voting ahead of midterms

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Trump's administration to move ahead with implementing key portions of an executive order that seeks to tighten the rules for mail voting ahead of the November midterm elections. In a 6-3 ruling, the high court granted a request for emergency relief sought by the Trump administration late last month in a case involving 23 Democratic-led states. The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to lift a lower court's injunction that stopped agencies from carrying out parts of Mr. Trump's directive, which involves the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Postal Service, in those states and the District of Columbia. The high court said in its unsigned decision that the states filed their lawsuit too soon. "The Court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful," the Supreme Court stated. "The Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it." The move from the high court clears the way for the Department of Homeland Security to move forward with a proposal to create lists of residents in each state who are eligible to vote. The White House called the decision "a major win for the security of American elections." White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis stated: "These are commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders." In a separate case involving voting-rights groups, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued an order earlier this month that prevents the Trump administration from implementing the executive order's provisions that direct the Postal Service to develop new procedures for mail ballots for the upcoming elections. But the Justice Department will likely argue the Supreme Court's decision applies to that case, too. The emergency appeal before the Supreme Court arose after Talwani sided with the group of states that challenged Mr. Trump's executive order and ruled the Constitution does not grant the president the authority to order changes to how they administer federal elections. The Supreme Court's order does not preclude the states from filing lawsuits that challenge the policies finalized and ultimately put in place by the administration in response to Mr. Trump's directive. Some states are set to begin sending mail ballots to voters for the upcoming midterms in the coming weeks. The three liberal justices dissented from the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, noted that the decision "merely postpones adjudication" of challenges to Mr. Trump's policies. "Today's decision does not address whether the President's attempts to interfere with States' administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful," Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. "Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President's directives."