Supreme Court Temporarily Halts Trump's Mail-In Voting Restrictions
-
The Supreme Court has given Trump a temporary win in his efforts to restrict mail-in voting. Justices on Monday paused a lower court's ruling that blocked key parts of an executive order Trump issued in March calling for the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to people on lists of U.S. citizens. The lower court's ruling applied to 23 mainly Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C., that sued the administration. With midterm elections just weeks away, the U.S. Postal Service and other federal agencies will face challenges implementing Trump's directives.
Compare 11 other versions
USA TodayU.S. President Donald Trump has been pushing to implement his executive order restricting the use of mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections, but a federal judge blocked it.
VoxSo Trump wants to impose impossible deadlines on many states. But Monday’s decision does not actually hold that it is legal for him to do so. Indeed, the federal judge who initially blocked Trump’s executive order has already signaled that she is likely to block the USPS’s new rule. We will find out if the Supreme Court will allow Trump to sabotage voting by mail after that new decision makes its way back to the justices.
The Guardian USGood morning. The US supreme court has sided with Donald Trump in his effort to crack down on mail-in voting, though it is unclear whether or not his administration will be able to take action before the midterm elections in November. The court’s justices voted 6-3 along ideological lines to lift an injunction that a judge in Massachusetts had placed in June on an executive order issued by the president. But a second injunction remains in place, and the ruling leaves room for legal challenges.
HuffPostWASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Monday in a case over President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be implemented before the fast-approaching midterm elections.
Fox NewsThe Supreme Court on Monday handed the Trump administration a victory, allowing it to enforce President Donald Trump’s "election integrity" executive order restricting mail-in voting ahead of the November midterms.
New York TimesWhere Does Trump’s Executive Order Restricting Mail Voting Stand? The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to continue with plans to curtail mail-in voting, but the fast-moving, high-stakes legal fight continues.
NBC NewsThe Trump administration told the Supreme Court the new regulations did not go as far as the executive order anticipated, saying the Postal Service “will not refuse to transmit ballots” even if senders are not included on a state list of registered voters.
Washington ExaminerA federal judge said Tuesday that the U.S. Postal Service violated a nationwide injunction by issuing President Donald Trump‘s mail-ballot rule for the November election, but declined to impose additional relief that would prevent its scheduled publication Wednesday. Her ruling came one day after the Supreme Court found states had sued too early over Trump’s mail-ballot executive order and lifted an injunction in a separate lawsuit.
PBS NewsHourNothing changes yet with the Supreme Court's order on mail voting. But it could open door to 'chaos' Rather than saying that President Donald Trump's order is legal, the high court said Monday it was too early for Democratic-run states to challenge it in June, when they convinced a federal judge in Boston to freeze the order for November's election.
The FederalistThe U.S. Supreme Court agreed to pause a lower court blockade on President Trump’s mail-in voting executive order on Monday. The vote was 6-3, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
ReutersExplainer: Trump's mail-in ballot order gets Supreme Court boost but legal fights persist - Reuters Explainer: Trump's mail-in ballot order gets Supreme Court boost but legal fights persist Reuters
-
“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,” the majority wrote in an unsigned order.
Compare 4 other versions
Fox News"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 majority wrote. "On that score, time will tell."
NBC News“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,” the court said in a the unsigned ruling.
USA Today"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," the majority's decision stated. The court's three liberal justices dissented.
The FederalistThe majority went on to note that its ruling on the administration’s application “does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful.” While “time will tell” on that point, the justices affirmed that “the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.”
-
The litigation will continue in the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s order stays the Massachusetts injunction while the administration’s appeal proceeds in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and potentially returns to the Supreme Court.
Compare 1 other version
NBC NewsLower courts declined to put the Massachusetts ruling on hold, leading the administration to turn to the Supreme Court.
-
How did the legal challenges play out? California and a group of 22 other states, as well as Washington, DC, sued to halt Trump's directive, contending that it would cause confusion before the midterms and disenfranchise a substantial number of voters.
Compare 1 other version
HuffPostDemocratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia sued to block the order. They argued that the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to run elections, and Trump’s changes could lead to chaos and partisan abuse.
-
The U.S. Postal Service and Justice Department said they would immediately implement the revised mail-ballot restrictions after the ruling.
-
“I respectfully dissent. States administering elections and the voting public that relies on them to do so deserve clarity, not caginess or confusion,” Jackson wrote. “The Court does a disservice to all concerned by distorting Article III standing and ripeness principles to issue a ruling that contributes to pre-election chaos instead of quashing it, and by using its equitable authority to facilitate a patently inequitable result.”
Compare 1 other version
Fox News"The Court does a disservice to all concerned by distorting Article III standing and ripeness principles to issue a ruling that contributes to pre-election chaos instead of quashing it," she wrote.
-
The court’s order opens a path for the administration to begin action to restrict mail voting, but it also could lead to a bevy of potential further litigation that could freeze the federal government again, all starting 10 days before the first mail ballots in the nation are scheduled to be sent to overseas and military voters from North Carolina.
Compare 1 other version
Fox NewsThe Postal Service outlined plans last week for implementing portions of the order, according to The Associated Press, though the approaching election calendar could limit how much can take effect before November. North Carolina is scheduled to begin sending ballots to military and overseas voters Sept. 4, with other states following soon afterward.
10 details only one outlet reported
Independent claims that didn't surface elsewhere in our corpus. Treat as supplementary — not corroborated across outlets.
-
01 NBC News Hero lifeguard rushes in to save own family 01:15 Police rush into Uber to chase fleeing suspect 01:36 49ers Owner Arrested in Prostitution Sting 01:47 Mystery unfolding underground in New York City 01:19 People in Gary, Indiana without power for 13 days 01:52 Now Playing In win for Trump, Supreme Court backs restrictions on mail-in ballots 02:12 UP NEXT Ten of thousands evacuated from Nevada wildfire 02:10 Out-of-control wildfire forces evacuations 01:57 Good News: College football players surprised with scholarships 01:59 Inside the global humanoid robot competition in China 01:54 Hiker speaks out after violent attack 01:36 E-bike injuries surge in kids and teens 02:18 NFL player’s home burglarized 01:16 New questions as Harry and Meghan prepare to return to the U.K. 01:35 U.S. wages economic battles against Iran and Canada 01:00 Good News: Grandson surprises grandparents during vow renewal for 60th anniversary 03:07 Serena Williams to play with Carlos Alcaraz in return to US Open 01:56 U.S. and Canada trade war intensifies with new tariffs 02:02 Deadly heat, dangerous storms put millions at risk 01:59 Small plane makes emergency landing into ocean 01:30
-
02 The Guardian US How have rights organisations reacted? The president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Derrick Johnson, said: “Let this ruling be a reminder that democracy is never, ever guaranteed. We have to fight for it, we have to fight to keep it and we have to protect the rights we do have within it … they are trying to do everything they possibly can to make it difficult for you to vote.”
-
03 USA Today On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed him a win, lifting that judicial order, but other challenges remain.
-
04 Washington Examiner “Defendants cannot contend that they misunderstood the scope of the court’s order,” Talwani, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote in her five-page ruling. “Accordingly, despite the Defendants’ protestations that ‘[t]he United States takes its obligation to comply with court orders very seriously,’ the court finds that Defendants violated the preliminary injunction in this case.”
-
05 Reuters Judge chides US Postal Service over mail-in voting rule but won't block it - Reuters Judge chides US Postal Service over mail-in voting rule but won't block it Reuters
-
06 NPR News Good morning. You're reading the Up First newsletter. Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox, and listen to the Up First podcast for all the news you need to start your day.
-
07 Vox On Monday, the Supreme Court’s Republican majority allowed that order to go into effect. All three of the Court’s Democrats dissented.
-
08 Fox News SCOTUS stressed that its decision addressed the injunction rather than the ultimate legality of the order, leaving the door open to additional challenges.
-
09 The Federalist In its Monday ruling, the Supreme Court found that the Trump administration is likely to succeed on the merits of its arguments that Talwani lacked jurisdiction to issue a judgment on the matter. It also ruled that the government is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims that Talwani’s injunction “is causing it irreparable harm, and that the equities do not favor leaving the injunction in place while the [its] appeal is pending.”
-
10 HuffPost The Supreme Court’s conservative majority didn’t decide the legality of Trump’s order, instead ruling that states who sued did not have the legal right to challenge it.
Fact Corroboration
Which sources independently confirm the same facts. Hover a claim to see its sources, or a source to see what it corroborates.
Coverage by Perspective
Source Similarity
Connections show how similarly each outlet covered this story. Thicker lines = more similar framing.
Sources (12)
- huffpost
- pbs
- nyt
- foxnews
- federalist
- npr
- usatoday
- nbc
- guardian
- washexaminer
- vox
- reuters