Supreme Court Rules 6-3 to Allow Trump Mail-In Voting Executive Order to Move Forward

Be the first to comment

Post a comment

For millions of Americans who showed up to the polls, stood in line, and cast their ballots the honest way, nothing stings quite like the suspicion that their vote was neutralized by one that should never have been cast. Mail-in voting exploded during COVID. In many states, those emergency measures never sunset. The safeguards never caught up. And a straightforward question – how do we actually confirm that only eligible citizens are voting? – somehow became radioactive.

Every attempt to answer it gets the same treatment from the left. “Voter suppression.” “An assault on democracy.” Twenty-three Democrat-led states turned preemptive litigation into a reflex, racing to federal court to kill reform proposals before anyone could even see whether they worked. Then, on Monday, the Supreme Court had something to say about that.

From The Post Millennial:

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with an effort to limit mail-in voting through the Post Office. The justices ruled 6-3 to overturn a June injunction placed on Trump’s executive order on the matter.

The justices said that the over 20 Democrat-led states that sued over the move lacked standing because it was unclear how the administration will implement the order. “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. On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it,” the unsigned opinion states.

A win that shouldn’t have been this hard

The fact that this required a Supreme Court battle is itself absurd. President Trump signed the executive order back in March. It directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of adult citizens eligible to vote in each state. It instructed the Attorney General to prioritize prosecuting officials who hand federal ballots to ineligible voters. And it told the U.S. Postal Service to develop tighter procedures for mail-in ballot handling.

So what are these supposedly draconian USPS requirements that sent blue-state attorneys general sprinting to the courthouse? Brace yourself. Official Election Mail logos on envelopes. Automation-compatible formatting. Unique barcodes identifying an item as federal ballot mail and its destination ZIP code. Solicitor General D. John Sauer described them as “modest requirements.” That might be generous – “bare minimum” seems more accurate.

The Court’s majority dismantled each leg of the lower court’s injunction with surgical precision. The DHS citizenship list? An internal directive from the President to a subordinate. It compels states to do exactly nothing. The prosecution priority? Squarely within the constitutional powers of the executive branch. The USPS rule? At the time the lawsuit was filed, it wasn’t even a proposed regulation – let alone a finalized one. Twelve states led by Alabama filed in support of the administration, recognizing the obvious: you don’t get to sue over a policy that doesn’t exist yet.

What the dissents actually reveal

The three liberal justices dissented, and their opinions are – let’s say illuminating. Justice Jackson penned a 23-page broadside accusing the majority of helping the government “foment chaos ahead of the November elections.” Justice Sotomayor, in a four-page opinion joined by Justice Kagan, complained the government wanted to “have it both ways” – arguing the case wasn’t ripe while simultaneously claiming urgency.

Here’s the thing. There is no contradiction. The administration’s position is dead simple: let us finalize the policy before you declare it illegal. With midterm elections bearing down and some states launching mail-in voting within weeks, urgency is not a talking point. It’s reality. The left’s actual position, once you strip away the legalese, boils down to this: block the policy before it materializes, then protest that there’s nothing concrete to challenge.

Jackson called the situation “Kafkaesque.” With respect, the truly Kafkaesque scenario is the one she’s pushing – where a president can be told his policies are simultaneously too unformed to defend and too dangerous to allow.

Eyes on November

The legal war isn’t quite over. A separate injunction from a different lawsuit – filed by the League of Women Voters – still temporarily blocks one USPS provision nationwide. But the momentum is unmistakable. The nation’s highest court has told the administration: proceed. Implement your safeguards. If something unlawful emerges, the courts will address it then.

The principle underneath all of this is staggeringly simple. Only American citizens should vote in American elections. That twenty-three states marshaled their legal firepower to stop the federal government from even attempting to verify that fact speaks volumes – not about election integrity, but about their own priorities. And those priorities clearly don’t start with the citizens who play by the rules.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Democrat-led states lacked standing to block Trump’s election integrity executive order.
• The USPS requirements at issue are modest: official logos, barcodes, and automation-compatible envelopes.
• Twenty-three states fought to prevent even basic verification that only citizens receive mail-in ballots.
• The ruling clears the path for the administration to implement safeguards ahead of November’s midterms.

Sources: The Post Millennial, SCOTUS Blog