Trump administration seeks Supreme Court intervention to restrict mail-in voting as ballots begin deployment
The administration filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on Sunday to overturn a federal judge's block on new mail-in voting restrictions, as states begin distributing ballots for the midterm elections.
What happened
The Trump administration renewed its emergency appeal to the US Supreme Court on Sunday to allow restrictions on mail-in voting, following a Friday decision by US District Court Judge Indira Talwani extending an injunction that blocks the USPS from enforcing Trump's executive order limiting ballot delivery. The executive order, signed in March, would restrict ballots to voters on a federal list of eligible voters maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. States including North Carolina have already begun mailing ballots, with Alabama starting September 9 and at least five more states the week of September 13. This is the third time the administration has appealed to the Supreme Court on this matter; the Court has previously allowed the plan to move forward but has not ruled on its legality. The Solicitor General argued in the filing that each day the injunction remains in place risks "confusion and chaos" by making preparatory steps voluntary rather than mandatory.
Context
Nearly one-third of US voters cast ballots by mail, making this dispute consequential for the midterm elections with control of Congress at stake. The administration frames the restrictions as security measures; Democratic states and voting rights groups argue they are unconstitutional, and state election officials contend there is insufficient time to overhaul systems to comply with the federal directives. Trump has repeatedly sought to restrict mail-in voting despite using the method himself, and has falsely blamed mail balloting for his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden while promoting baseless claims of fraud.
What's disputed
Whether the executive order's restrictions on mail-in voting are constitutional and whether they are necessary security measures or unconstitutional limitations on voting access; whether there is adequate time for states to implement the new requirements.