Posted on 08/13/2026 7:59:38 AM PDT by DFG
The Trump administration on Wednesday reiterated its request for the Supreme Court to move quickly to block a ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts that prohibits the government from implementing part of an executive order on mail-in voting in 23 states and the District of Columbia for the November elections. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that “it is critical that the Court act promptly on the pending” request, which was filed on July 27 and has now been fully briefed for more than a week. “Otherwise,” Sauer wrote, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s “erroneous orders will effectively run out the clock on the government’s ability to implement Section 3 of the Executive Order,” which (among other things) bars the U.S. Postal Service from mailing ballots to voters who are not on the lists of eligible voters that the USPS will create “for the federal elections in November.” And that in turn, Sauer contended, will “caus[e] irreparable harm to the federal government, the public, and election integrity.”
President Donald Trump signed the executive order, which bears the title “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” on March 31. As it came to the court in late July, the focus of the case was on three different provisions of the order. The first instructs the Department of Homeland Security to create lists of the adult U.S. citizens in each state and to send those lists to states at least 60 days before a federal election. The second provision commands the U.S. attorney general to “prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of State and local officials … who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election.” And the third provision, known as Section 3, requires states to give the U.S. Postal Service a list of voters to whom the states intend to send mail ballots, and it prohibits the USPS from mailing ballots to voters who are not on the lists of “enrolled” voters that the USPS will create.
A group of 23 states, led by California, and the District of Columbia challenged the government’s implementation of the order in a federal court in Massachusetts. Talwani ruled that it was too soon for her to review the challengers’ claims as they applied to federal elections scheduled after Nov. 3, 2026. However, she said, the challengers’ claims with regard to the upcoming midterm elections were “ripe” – that is, ready for review – because the order “created a ‘direct and immediate dilemma’” for them. In a decision issued on June 25, she barred the federal government from implementing the challenged restrictions on or before Nov. 3, 2026, in the District of Columbia and the 23 states.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit turned down the government’s request to pause Talwani’s June 25 ruling while the litigation continued. It emphasized that neither the federal government nor 12 states, led by Alabama, that had joined the case on the Trump administration’s side had argued that the executive order was legal. That court also rejected the contention that the challengers did not have a right to sue or that the case was not yet ripe.
On July 27, the Trump administration came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to intervene. Calling Talwani’s decision “extraordinary,” Sauer renewed his argument that the challengers’ claims are not yet ripe for review because the agencies haven’t yet decided how they will implement the order. He also contended that unless the court steps in and puts Talwani’s ruling on hold, the government will be permanently harmed – one factor that courts consider in deciding whether to grant temporary relief – because it “blocks the government’s ability to finalize and implement the President’s proposed policies to promote election integrity for the upcoming federal elections in November.” Moreover, he added, “every day that it remains in place irreparably harms the government, as the start of mail-in and absentee voting in some States is now just one month away.”
In a filing on Aug. 3, the challengers countered that blocking Talwani’s ruling “would allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program that would, among other things, give the U.S. Postal Service far-reaching new powers and responsibilities.” They also emphasized that the 1st Circuit had agreed with them that “the specificity of the EO’s stated timelines and the inescapable legal requirements and impending deadlines that States currently face in facilitating mail-in and absentee balloting for immediately upcoming elections together establish” the kind of “concrete injury” that allows them to sue.
The catalyst for Wednesday’s supplemental brief was Talwani’s decision on Tuesday in a separate challenge to the executive order, this time brought by (among others) the League of Women Voters, that temporarily bars the U.S. Postal Service from implementing Section 3 of the executive order. Sauer stressed that Tuesday’s ruling sweeps even more broadly than Talwani’s June 25 decision because it applies “nationwide on behalf of” the various groups who are plaintiffs in the new case.
Talwani’s Aug. 11 ruling, Sauer argued, “confirms the urgent need for this Court to grant the stay of” her June 25 ruling “and to explain its rationale for doing so.” In particular, Sauer emphasized, Tuesday’s ruling suffers from the same problem as its predecessor: “Courts cannot enjoin implementation of an Executive Order that merely instructs agencies to pursue a proposed policy in a manner that is consistent with laws … unless and until those agencies actually take concrete actions that injure the plaintiffs.”
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
I can only imagine what that decision will be
I think it is a good idea because USPS knows addresses but to implement such an idea will take a very long time. I live in Washington state all voting is by mail but they have drop boxes in certain locations but I am not sure if USPS databases capture all that information since we sign the ballots which have our signatures on file.
I don’t know how the court will rule in this case, but it’s a shame that it seems like everything has to go to the Supreme Court before it gets a fair hearing.
SINCE WHEN DOES THE USPS HANDLE VOTER REGISTRATION?
SINCE WHEN DOES THE USPS HANDLE VOTER REGISTRATION?
************************************************
1. Stop Screaming.
2. Kansas for one has registration by mail.
No one is asking USPS to handle voter registration. Trump admin is simply directing them to not mail ballots that include federal offices to non-citizens
State control the elections within the States, as long as they don’t violate the Voter Rights act or Civil rights of voters. That is a Constitutional guarantee.
The post office is part of the Executive branch, and therefore charged with enforcing Federal law.
The question is “Does the Federal Mail Service have to participate in State Voter Fraud”? If states will not identify ‘mail in balloters’ as US Citizens, currently living, or even the people they say they are,
Trump administration urges Supreme Court to issue a decision in mail-in voting dispute
The Constitution reasonably decides this issue imo. So is dispute nothing more than usual election year smoke and mirrors?
Alleged anti-Trump judges so far seem to be ignoring the Supremacy Clause in the context of federally-controlled US Mail imo.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads; It is one of a few government agencies explicitly authorized by the Constitution of the United States. (non-FR)
Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
If you can put a traceable serial number on ever federal reserve note printed, implementing an authentication method for ballots should be a piece of cake. We all know why the Dems fight it, and we all know why the judge ruled the way she did. After a point, the partisanship is blatant and undeniable.
Supreme Court must have a problem with reasoning if it can’t pass mail-in voting.
Or ?
Are there federal laws against voting fraud?
Trump’s E/O, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal
Elections,” came to the court in late July, focusing on three provisions:
<><>instructs DHS to create lists of the adult US citizens in each state
<><>to send those lists to states at least 60 days before a federal election
<><>commands the US AG to “prioritize the investigation
<><>and, as appropriate, to prosecute State and local officials …
<><>targeting those who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election.”
<><>requires states to give USPS a list of voters to whom the states intend to send mail-in ballots,
<><>prohibits USPS from mailing ballots to voters not on USPS-created “enrolled” voter lists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.