- The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to clear the way for an executive order from President Donald Trump that could dramatically change mail-in voting.
- This emergency appeal comes after a ruling blocking the order in nearly half the country ahead of November’s midterm elections.
- The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to allow agencies to take steps to implement the changes while lawsuits play out.
- Trump ordered the government in March to create a ‘state citizenship list’ of eligible voters and deliver mail ballots only to people on that list.
- A federal district court blocked its implementation for this year’s election in the states that sued, and a 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld that decision.
- Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the high court to freeze the judge’s order, calling it 'indefensible.'
- He urged the high court to move quickly, arguing that any new policies would have to be in place as soon as August to be effective for the November elections.
- The executive order issued in March calls for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to create a federal list of eligible voters.
- It tells the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on that list.
- A coalition of 23 states argue Trump lacks authority to impose federal rules on elections administered by state and local officials.
- Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia sued, saying the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to set election rules.
- The majority said the order would impose 'unprecedented levels of involvement' by federal officials in how states administer elections and risk confusion and voter disenfranchisement.
The Trump administration's emergency appeal to the Supreme Court seeks to enforce mail-in voting restrictions amid ongoing legal challenges.2
The appeal follows a federal court ruling that blocked the executive order in 23 states, asserting that states have the authority to set election rules.1011
Solicitor General D. John Sauer described the ruling as “indefensible” and urged the court to act swiftly, emphasizing that new policies must be in place by August for the November elections.7
Trump's executive order mandates the creation of a “state citizenship list” for eligible voters, allowing the Postal Service to reject ballots from those not on the list. This directive has raised concerns among Democratic officials and voting-rights groups, who argue it could disenfranchise eligible voters.
A federal district court has blocked the order's implementation, with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding this decision, stating that the order would impose “unprecedented levels of involvement by federal officials in how states administer elections” and risk confusion.5
Despite the ruling affecting nearly half the country, a separate federal appeals court in Washington has lifted a broader injunction, leaving open the possibility for the Postal Service to implement restrictions elsewhere.
The legal battle continues as a coalition of 23 Democratic-led states argues that Trump lacks the authority to impose federal rules on state-administered elections, while a dozen Republican-led states have intervened to defend the executive order.
“The emergency appeal comes after a federal appeals court upheld a ruling blocking Trump's order in 23 states, arguing that states must prepare for potentially disruptive election changes. Solicitor General D. John Sauer called the lower court's decision 'indefensible' and urged the Supreme Court to act quickly to implement the new policies ahead of the November elections.”
AP News
CNBC
