Supreme Court blocks Trump mail-in ballot plan

The Supreme Court has declined to overturn a lower court's ruling that prohibits the Postal Service from implementing new mail-in ballot delivery rules ahead of the upcoming midterm elections. This decision preserves the existing lower court decision, which halted the Postal Service from enforcing the new regulations due to concerns that millions of voters might be disenfranchised because their ballots might not be delivered in time.

The majority of the high court, without providing a detailed explanation, stated that the Trump administration's position was improbable to succeed and that the legal aspects did not support lifting the lower court's ruling. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a brief concurring opinion, highlighted that state and local election officials lack the necessary time to reasonably implement the rule before the election.

Two justices dissented, namely Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who argued that Congress, under the Elections Clause, can enact such rules, and the Postal Service can be authorized by statute to issue them. Alito referred to the litigation as a "Hail Mary pass." The Trump administration claimed the new measures were essential to prevent fraud, but many state and local election officials contended that the federal government was risking chaos by attempting to introduce a new ballot-matching system at a time when poll workers nationwide were already distributing ballots to voters in advance of the midterms.

These recent federal government actions to control mail-in voting stem from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March, in which he alleged, without evidence, that widespread fraud occurs during mail-in voting. Trump's order was met with lawsuits from voting rights advocates, Democratic Party groups, and Democratic-led states.

Two of these cases were assigned to U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee. In June, she blocked the administration from proceeding with key elements of Trump's directive. However, the justices voted 6 to 3 along ideological lines in June to lift Talwani's injunction. The majority argued that her decision was premature as it occurred before the administration finalized the plan.

The final rule, which was released a day before the Supreme Court's decision to lift Talwani's injunction, prompted a fresh round of litigation, leading to the new injunction that the Supreme Court did not uphold on Monday. A judge in Washington overseeing three lawsuits challenging the Postal Service's actions issued a preliminary injunction against enforcing the mail-in ballot rule in the midterms on Sunday.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols argued that the Postal Service lacks congressional authorization to introduce new election procedures, create a data collection system for mail-in and absentee voters, or refuse the transmission of lawful mail based on data collection requirements.