Supreme Court allows Trump to implement parts of order restricting mail voting

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed President Trump's administration to advance with implementing significant parts of an executive order designed to tighten regulations for mail-in voting ahead of the November midterm elections. In a 6-3 decision, the high court granted an emergency request for relief filed by the Trump administration late last month, addressing a case involving 23 Democratic-led states.

The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to lift a lower court's injunction that had halted agencies from executing parts of Mr. Trump's directive. This directive involves the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Postal Service in those states and the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court's action clears the way for the Department of Homeland Security to begin compiling lists of residents eligible to vote in each state.

Separately, in a case involving voting-rights groups, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani had issued an order earlier this month preventing the Trump administration from enacting provisions of the executive order that directed the Postal Service to establish new procedures for mail ballots for the upcoming elections. The emergency appeal before the Supreme Court arose after Talwani sided with the group of states challenging Mr. Trump's executive order, ruling that the Constitution does not grant the president the authority to order changes to how states administer federal elections.

The Supreme Court's order does not prevent states from initiating lawsuits to challenge policies that the administration ultimately finalizes and implements in response to Mr. Trump's directive. Some states are preparing to send mail ballots to voters for the upcoming midterms in the coming weeks. The Court stated in an unsigned decision, "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. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it."

“

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. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.