Did the Supreme Court just change how you’ll vote in November? Not yet. Monday’s ruling gave President Donald Trump a temporary win in his fight to restrict mail voting, but the justices never decided whether his order is actually legal, and one key roadblock is still standing.
The court said Democratic-led states moved too soon in June when they got a federal judge in Boston to freeze Trump’s order. Justices said the challenge was premature, not that the policy itself is constitutional. A second court order still blocks the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing new mail-ballot rules nationwide, and the Trump administration is fighting to lift that hold too.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning the ruling injects “chaos and uncertainty” into the midterms. Election officials in several states say there’s no realistic way to meet new envelope and voter-verification rules before ballots start going out, some within days.
Still, legal experts across the spectrum, including UCLA’s Rick Hasen and Notre Dame’s Derek Muller, doubt the changes actually reach voters by November. More lawsuits are expected first.
Trump has long pushed to limit mail voting, even though he has repeatedly voted by mail himself.
Read more:
• Nothing changes yet with the Supreme Court’s order on elections. But it could open door to ’chaos’
This article was constructed with the assistance of artificial intelligence and published by a member of The Washington Times' AI News Desk team. The contents of this report are based solely on The Washington Times' original reporting, wire services, and/or other sources cited within the report. For more information, please read our AI policy or contact Steve Fink, Director of Artificial Intelligence, at sfink@washingtontimes.com
The Washington Times AI Ethics Newsroom Committee can be reached at aispotlight@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.