Supreme Court won’t restore Trump’s mail-in voting plan for midterms
The Supreme Court declined on Monday to lift a lower-court injunction against President Trump’s proposal to expand mail-in voting for the upcoming midterm elections. Two conservative justices filed dissenting opinions, but the high court left in place a judge’s ruling that had found the plan unlawful.
Why It Matters
By leaving the lower court’s block in place, the Supreme Court prevented the administration from implementing its mail-in voting changes for the midterms, prolonging a legal dispute the administration has repeatedly tried to fast-track to the justices. The decision underscores ongoing judicial resistance to the plan after outside groups challenged it in court.
Key Facts
- Action by Supreme Court: Refused to clear the way for President Trump’s mail-in voting plan for the midterms
- Date: Monday (as reported)
- Dissent: Two conservative justices dissented from the court’s action
- Lower-court status: A judge had blocked the plan, declaring it unlawful; that block remains intact
- Repeated appeals: This was the third time the Trump administration took the plan to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket after groups blocked the effort
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in a legal fight over the Trump administration’s plan to expand mail-in voting for the midterm elections. The court left untouched a lower-court injunction that had declared the plan unlawful, meaning the administration cannot put the policy into effect while the case proceeds.
Two conservative justices registered dissent from the high court’s refusal to act, but their objections did not change the outcome. With the majority declining emergency relief, the judge’s block remains the operative restriction on the plan.
The administration has repeatedly sought emergency review of the initiative. Monday’s refusal marked the third time the Trump team has brought the matter to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket after outside groups successfully challenged the proposal in lower courts.
As a result, the legal bar to the administration’s mail-in voting changes continues for now, and the dispute remains unresolved in the courts. Further appeals or proceedings in lower courts could determine whether the plan is ever permitted to move forward before the midterms.
Keep Reading
Iran strikes on US diplomatic facilities in 4 Gulf countries cost $184M: IG report
Paxton gets $54M boost from Senate Leadership Fund’s Texas PAC
Blanche to hold press briefing in Rose Garden Tuesday
Democrats send counteroffer to Republicans over Clarity Act provisions
Original source: The Hill