Feature Image: yourNEWS Media Illustration
The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for nationwide enforcement of President Donald Trump’s mail-voting executive order after a federal judge expanded her earlier injunction to block the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out the new ballot-delivery rules across the country.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
President Donald Trump’s administration returned to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, seeking emergency intervention that would allow the federal government to fully enforce restrictions on mail-in voting contained in a March executive order ahead of the November midterm elections.
The Justice Department asked the justices to place on hold a ruling issued Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston. Talwani’s latest decision prevents the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing nationwide a provision of Trump’s order that would tighten the conditions under which mail ballots can be delivered.
The dispute reaches the Supreme Court as the administration attempts to put the president’s election directives into effect before voters determine control of Congress in November.
Trump, a Republican, signed the executive order in March after years of advocating tighter restrictions on voting by mail and asserting that widespread voter fraud was responsible for his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.
Talwani’s Tuesday ruling substantially broadened an earlier injunction she issued in June.
That previous order barred enforcement of Trump’s executive action in 23 states, most of them led by Democratic governors, as well as Washington, D.C. Those jurisdictions had challenged the administration’s policy on constitutional grounds.
Several voting rights organizations, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, brought the case that produced Tuesday’s broader decision.
The administration had already gone to the Supreme Court seeking to suspend Talwani’s June ruling. In its new filing Wednesday, the Justice Department asked the justices not only to lift that earlier decision but also to clarify that any Supreme Court action blocking the June injunction would encompass Talwani’s expanded Tuesday order.
At the center of the administration’s argument is whether the legal challenges were filed before any concrete injury had occurred.
Justice Department attorneys contend the lawsuits are premature because the federal agencies covered by Trump’s order have not yet taken actions causing an actual injury to the plaintiffs. According to the administration, the harms identified by the challengers therefore remain speculative rather than immediate.
Trump’s executive order contains several directives affecting the administration of federal elections and the federal government’s interaction with state election systems.
One provision instructs the Department of Homeland Security to assemble and provide states with lists identifying U.S. citizens eligible to vote within each state.
Another directs the Justice Department to prioritize investigations and prosecutions involving state and local election officials who issue ballots to people determined to be “not eligible” to participate in federal elections.
The executive order also imposes a requirement on the U.S. Postal Service affecting the handling of ballots sent through the mail.
Under that provision, the Postal Service would be permitted to deliver mail ballots only to voters appearing on the approved mail-in ballot list maintained by the relevant state.
The Postal Service recently began moving toward implementation of that directive, making the dispute over Talwani’s injunction more immediate as the midterm elections approach.
Talwani concluded Tuesday that the federal executive branch does not possess the constitutional authority claimed by the administration to regulate the conduct of elections.
Her ruling rests on the position that the Constitution assigns responsibility for election administration to the states rather than giving the president authority to impose the challenged requirements through executive action.
The dispute therefore places two competing arguments before the courts.
The administration maintains that the challenges should not proceed because federal agencies have not yet taken sufficiently concrete steps to create the injuries alleged by the plaintiffs. The challengers contend the executive order intrudes on powers reserved to the states and could alter how mail ballots and voter eligibility are handled.
Talwani’s June injunction initially limited enforcement only within the states and Washington, D.C., that had challenged Trump’s directive. Tuesday’s decision extended the practical reach of the dispute by preventing the Postal Service from applying the tighter mail-ballot delivery provision nationwide.
The Justice Department’s Wednesday filing seeks to prevent that broader restriction from remaining in place while litigation continues.
If the Supreme Court grants the administration’s request, federal officials could move forward with the challenged provisions while the underlying constitutional questions are litigated. If the justices leave Talwani’s rulings intact, enforcement of the disputed requirements would remain blocked under the terms of her orders.
The administration’s latest request also marks its second effort to secure Supreme Court intervention in the litigation following Talwani’s June decision.
The timing has increased the significance of the legal fight, with the November congressional elections approaching and the Postal Service already moving toward implementation of the president’s mail-ballot directive.
The Supreme Court must now determine whether to intervene at this stage and suspend the lower court’s restrictions while the broader challenge to Trump’s executive order proceeds.
Original article
Comments