The US Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to begin implementing parts of an executive order seeking major changes to mail voting, although continuing legal challenges could still prevent some measures from taking effect before November’s midterm elections.
In an unsigned 10-page decision opposed by the court’s three liberal justices, the Supreme Court cleared the administration to proceed with a plan directing the Department of Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of people it considers eligible US citizen voters.
The ruling also allows the US Postal Service to pursue new requirements for states using the mail to distribute ballots. Under Trump’s March executive order, states would have to provide voter eligibility information to USPS and use tracking information on ballot envelopes. However, a separate nationwide injunction from a federal court currently prevents the Postal Service requirements from being implemented.
The Supreme Court stressed that Monday’s decision does not determine whether Trump’s executive order is legal.
“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 justices said, adding that future litigation would determine that question.
Trump signed the executive order in March, directing DHS and USPS to assume new responsibilities involving voter-roll screening and state mail-ballot programmes. The administration says the measures are intended to strengthen election integrity, while Democratic-led states challenging the order argue that the president is attempting to exercise powers over elections that belong primarily to states and Congress.
The order would require states to provide USPS with eligible-voter lists. Under its provisions, ballots sent by states to individuals who do not appear on those lists could not be delivered. States would also be required to use tracking barcodes on ballot envelopes.
Federal courts in Boston previously blocked implementation of the order in 23 Democratic-led states. A separate lawsuit brought by voter-advocacy organisations resulted in a nationwide injunction against the USPS provisions, meaning further litigation is likely before the November elections.
The White House described Monday’s decision as a victory for election security.
But the court’s liberal justices strongly objected. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, emphasised that the majority had merely postponed consideration of whether the president possesses constitutional or statutory authority to impose the directives.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson went further, warning that the decision “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections” and describing the court’s approach to the timing of election challenges as a “Kafkaesque nightmare.”
With some states only weeks away from beginning the distribution of mail ballots, the dispute is expected to return quickly to the federal courts.
The US Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to begin implementing parts of an executive order seeking major changes to mail voting, although continuing legal challenges could still prevent some measures from taking effect before November’s midterm elections.
In an unsigned 10-page decision opposed by the court’s three liberal justices, the Supreme Court cleared the administration to proceed with a plan directing the Department of Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of people it considers eligible US citizen voters.
The ruling also allows the US Postal Service to pursue new requirements for states using the mail to distribute ballots. Under Trump’s March executive order, states would have to provide voter eligibility information to USPS and use tracking information on ballot envelopes. However, a separate nationwide injunction from a federal court currently prevents the Postal Service requirements from being implemented.
The Supreme Court stressed that Monday’s decision does not determine whether Trump’s executive order is legal.
“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 justices said, adding that future litigation would determine that question.
Trump signed the executive order in March, directing DHS and USPS to assume new responsibilities involving voter-roll screening and state mail-ballot programmes. The administration says the measures are intended to strengthen election integrity, while Democratic-led states challenging the order argue that the president is attempting to exercise powers over elections that belong primarily to states and Congress.
The order would require states to provide USPS with eligible-voter lists. Under its provisions, ballots sent by states to individuals who do not appear on those lists could not be delivered. States would also be required to use tracking barcodes on ballot envelopes.
Federal courts in Boston previously blocked implementation of the order in 23 Democratic-led states. A separate lawsuit brought by voter-advocacy organisations resulted in a nationwide injunction against the USPS provisions, meaning further litigation is likely before the November elections.
The White House described Monday’s decision as a victory for election security.
But the court’s liberal justices strongly objected. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, emphasised that the majority had merely postponed consideration of whether the president possesses constitutional or statutory authority to impose the directives.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson went further, warning that the decision “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections” and describing the court’s approach to the timing of election challenges as a “Kafkaesque nightmare.”
With some states only weeks away from beginning the distribution of mail ballots, the dispute is expected to return quickly to the federal courts.
