Trump is desperate and delusional. 
Desperation Sets In
In a move that is headed nowhere, The President Asks Supreme Court to Allow His Order Restricting Mail Voting
The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for an executive order by President Trump that restricts voting by mail, setting up a legal showdown as the president pushes for more control over voting ahead of the midterm elections in November.
The administration filed the emergency application to the justices after a federal appeals court on Saturday blocked key parts of his executive order.
In the application, Solicitor General D. John Sauer called the lower court ruling “indefensible,” asserting that it imposed “serious irreparable harm on the federal government” and would bar federal agencies from implementing an executive order “promoting election integrity in the upcoming federal elections in November.”
The legal battle stems from an executive order signed by Mr. Trump in late March that had attempted to place limits on mail-in voting, including using federal oversight of the U.S. Postal Service to gain greater control over mail-in voting practices.
The executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to create state-by-state citizen lists that would help determine voter eligibility. It then called on the Postal Service to use lists provided by states to determine if voters should be allowed to vote by mail.
More than 20 Democratic attorneys general challenged the order in court, arguing that it violated several provisions of the Constitution, including the separation of powers, by having the executive branch take control of functions usually regulated by Congress and the states.
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the challengers to respond to the government’s emergency application by Monday, Aug. 3.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly criticized mail-in voting and sought restrictions on it. For years, he has made unfounded claims sowing doubt about voting by mail and claiming that it allows widespread fraud.
So far, federal courts have stymied many of Mr. Trump’s efforts to restrict mail voting.
In late June, a federal judge issued a ruling that blocked key parts of the executive order. Judge Indira Talwani, a federal district judge in Massachusetts, concluded that “the Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”
She underlined the words “does not.”
This weekend, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld her decision.
The judges wrote that if the president’s order were allowed to go into effect for the midterm elections in November, “it would sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters.”
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
Please consider United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Case 26-1774, 26-1779.
Order of the Court
Under the Constitution, state and local officials are responsible for administering federal elections. In the spring of 2026, President Trump issued an executive order with nationwide effects on how state and local officials can administer federal elections, including the upcoming primary and general elections in September and November. In particular, the executive order directed substantial involvement by the United States Postal Service in deciding which ballots sent to and from voters would be delivered. The plaintiffs in this case — 23 states and the District of Columbia (the “Plaintiff States”) — filed this lawsuit against the President, federal agencies, and agency heads, challenging the executive order as ultra vires and unconstitutional. The district court entered final judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States as to some of their claims and enjoined most of the defendants (but not the President) from implementing certain provisions of the executive order, but only as to federal elections on or before November 3, 2026, and only in the Plaintiff States. The federal defendants and 12 states that intervened in the case in support of the executive order have now filed separate motions seeking a stay of the district court’s injunction pending appeal, arguing only that the Plaintiff States lack standing to bring their claims and that those claims are not ripe. We deny their motions.
Discussion
Although the district court held that the EO is unconstitutional, that question is not presently before us because the Government does not defend the legality of the EO in requesting a stay. Instead, it argues only that the Plaintiff States do not have standing to challenge the EO because their claims are premature.
The Government also does not contest the district court’s assessment of the summary judgment record that informed its final ruling. Before the district court, the Government did not dispute the declarations and other factual submissions by the Plaintiff States.
Finally, the Government has conceded several points in the district court and in its motion to our court. For example, it concedes that the federal defendants have been moving ahead to implement the directives in the EO, including by “[e]stablishing infrastructure to” “compile, maintain, and transmit [the DHS] Citizenship Lists” and “taking steps to create a [USPS] portal” for collecting information about individuals who are eligible to vote by mail.
And the Government has indicated that it may use the DHS Citizenship Lists to conduct investigations and potential criminal prosecutions of state and local officials. As we will explain, these concessions undermine its arguments that the Plaintiff States lack standing to challenge the EO because their claims are premature.
Likelihood of Success on the Merits
The parties’ dispute centers on whether the Plaintiff States have suffered an injury in fact to establish their standing to sue and, relatedly, whether the Plaintiff States’ claims are ripe for review. We conclude that the Government has not made a “strong showing” that it is likely to prevail on its standing and ripeness arguments on appeal.
Article III Injury
The Government focuses on the injury-in-fact requirement and contends that the Plaintiff States’ alleged injuries are merely speculative. According to the Government, the Plaintiff States have not suffered any current or impending injuries from the EO itself and are basing their claims on “potential future actions agencies may take to implement it.” In particular, the Government emphasizes that Section 2(a) imposes no obligations on the Plaintiff States and USPS has not finalized the details of its new rule.
The district court concluded that the Plaintiff States had suffered three current or certainly impending injuries that were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article III. In opposing the Government’s stay motion, the Plaintiff States also point to a fourth injury: the EO’s intrusion into their sovereign interests in administering state elections consistent with the Constitution and state statutes. To secure a stay, the Government would need to make a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on appeal in demonstrating that none of these injuries are sufficient to confer Article III standing. We conclude that it has not done so with the arguments presented in the stay motions.
First, the district court concluded that the EO imposed a present injury because it required Plaintiff States to begin planning now on how to comply with its directives, given that the September and November elections were just months away. As the Plaintiff States put it, the EO “require[s] [them] to expend time and resources now to prevent . . . chaos, confusion, and disenfranchisement.”
Second, the district court concluded that the Plaintiff States faced certainly impending pocketbook injuries from the EO’s direction that USPS control the design of envelopes in all federal voting-by-mail processes. In doing so, it relied on the summary judgment record, which indicated that several states had already ordered mail-ballot envelopes for the 2026 federal election cycle around the time they filed their complaint.
Third, the district court concluded that the EO threatens the Plaintiff States and their officials with criminal penalties if they do not comply with its directives and that the “threat is sufficiently imminent for Article III injury.”
The Government’s stay arguments on this issue are further undermined by its representations before the district court. In fact, the Government repeatedly indicated below that the DHS Citizenship Lists could be used to “facilitate . . . post-election law-enforcement activity,” including prosecuting violations of laws that “explicitly prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote.” (Quoting 91 Fed. Reg. at 17125.) And when the district court asked whether the Government would have probable cause to prosecute a state official merely for sending a ballot to someone not on the DHS Citizenship Lists, the Government’s counsel equivocated, stating: “I don’t know the answer to that question, Your Honor.” State and local officials are no exception to the commonsense rule that “[p]eople do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around.”
The EO directs unprecedented levels of involvement by federal officials in how states administer elections. In doing so, the EO plainly affects the Plaintiff States’ “sovereign power . . . to create and enforce a legal code” for elections.
IV. CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, we deny the motions to stay.
Expect Trump to Be Slapped by the Court
Assuming the Supreme Court even hears the case, it ought to be 9-0.
Trump seeks powers that constitutionally belong to the states.
What’s even more amusing, is team Trump essentially admitted to the appeals court that the executive order was unconstitutional.
Appeals Court Stops Trump’s Post Office Attempt to Steal the Election
Yesterday, I noted Appeals Court Stops Trump’s Post Office Attempt to Steal the Election
Unconstitutional Order
Trump, Homeland Security and 8 defendant states do not challenge the fact that the order is unconstitutional.
They preceded anyway attempting to force states to comply with illegal orders.
That is all you need to know.
Trump does not care, nor does Homeland Security, nor does the Attorney General, nor does the head of Social Security, nor does the Postmaster General, whether or not an executive order is illegal.
More accurately, they know full well Trump’s order is illegal.
Willing to Enforce Unconstitutional Orders
- Donald Trump, President
- Todd Blanche, Acting United States Attorney General
- Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the United Stated Department of Homeland Security
- Frank Bisigano, Commissioner of the United States Social Security Administration
- David Steiner, Postmaster General and Chief Executive Officer of the Postal Service
- Doug Tulino, Deputy Postmaster General, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Human Resources Officer of the Postal Service and Member of the Postal Service Board of Governors
All of the above should be impeached and removed from office for attempting to willingly enforce actions known to be unconstitutional.
Trump’s Effort to Steal the Election
This is a clear effort by Trump and his sycophants to steal the election.
That what unconstitutional orders and going 0-18 means given Republican-appointed judges ruling against the DOJ in 11 of the cases.
Stop the Steal
Trump and his warmongering, racist cult are genuine threats to the United States of America.
Republicans, did you vote for another war, higher inflation, illegal orders, higher deficits?
Don’t tell me your rep is different when he/she votes for all of the above with a couple of exceptions. Few have the courage of Thomas Massie.
There is only one way to stop the steal, stop illegal orders, stop the war, stop Trump’s graft, and find out what is really in the Epstein files.
It pains me to say this, but that way is to vote Republicans out of office regardless of other consequences.
If you can’t stand voting for the lesser of two evils, then do what I do, and that’s vote Libertarian.
When Trump loses the House (and he will), impeachments will begin. That is precisely what his all-out efforts to steal the election are about.
Why delusional? The Supreme Court has proven to be a rubberstamp more often than not.
I don’t know if one is allowed to mention this, but what is the Jewish angle on all this? An awful lot of Americans, Europeans and Australians have been horrified by the massacres in Gaza, and the Jewish hold on Western public opinion is seriously threatened. In Australia, one of our leading newspapers is bravely battling on for the Israeli cause, but it looks to me as if it is losing.
If Trump and the Republicans are wiped out in this election, what is that going to do to American support for Israel?
I have always understood that the Jewish influence controls the mass media, the film industry, and the law in America. I don’t know if it actually controls your Supreme Court. But if it does, it surely can’t allow Trump to lose now.
It was one thing when the Democratic Party was controlled by money. Now people like Mamdani are winning elections. I deplore their socialism and economic ignorance, but I can’t help but be on their side when it comes to Israel. Can the secret British-American-Israeli joint government allow them to take control of the American legislative bodies? Or am I just mad?
In the recent California primary, there were a number of mail ballots that were disqualified for various reasons. Some were not postmarked in time, some were lacking signature, some, the signature did not match the one on file. I always vote in person, even in in 2020, during the Covid scare.
I predict 7-2 because Scalia Junior and Uncle Tom always side with Trump over the Constitution
THE BIGGEST FRAUD IS IN THE NOMINATING PROCESS.
It’s in the media cartel — including 99% of those “independent” channels on YouTube that algorithmically decides what to promote, demonetize, or remove — that tells people how to think (“who is electable”, what your neighbors supposedly think, why you should support policies that benefit the rich)
But, you people…
Define “you people”.
Share with us how you are better or smarter than “you people”, instead of a cowardly, vague, platitude.
Some readers might’ve inferred that my “you people” reference includes, at minimum, people who debate voting issues (ballot fraud, mailin voting) and vote uniparty anyway.
Those same readers would infer from my handle that I don’t.
The GOP has become profoundly un-American, anti-Constitution, anti-States Rights, anti-conservative. It is now the party of trailer park socialists run by a psychopath.
This is socialism run by rich people for their benefit. IOW, not socialism.
Libertarians argue it’s not capitalism either.
Theft, lies, and murder are somewhat orthogonal to economics. Our problems are less about ideology and more about voters not maintaining standards or their attention to detail when it comes to the criminal behavior of candidates.
But there is a saying that politics is downstream from culture. I’m unfortunately seeing evidence to support this.
My step father wants Trump to nuke Iran out of existence. Kill every man, woman and child. Why? Because he remembers Iranians marching in the streets with “Death to America” banners. But what have they actually ever done to America? I ask. He says it doesn’t matter, the world needs to know how “strong” “we” are. I’m sure there are 10’s of millions who think exactly that way.
Very scary, Jon.
I have a self-described “religious” family member or two who think trump has done everything to try to make peace. I dont know where to begin with some people.
The problem is…well, the problems are many. But certainly “consolidation” — in the media especially but really many industries — culled independent voices. We are drowning in regime disinformation.
BTW, I agree with your comment other than to say: please dont blame the IMO wrong economic model(s).
I dont know that there’s a solution. Our species hasn’t changed. Oligarch personalities haven’t changed. Aggression hasn’t changed. Seems most people today would’ve gone along with slavery and genociding the actual “Americans” had they lived 200 years ago.
Really, really sad.
anthropology 101. we are talking apes. our species follow the silver backs who promise to protect them from the ape troop on other side of the mountain………….a few more advanced folks think for themselves and question this bootlicking nature of the majority.
Read Robert Ardrey.
Ya, but America is not strong it is weak. It has nuclear bombs but really can’t use them without creating a raft of new problems. Its population is uncommitted to any type of war. It is an economic basket case depending on other governments to keep it afloat.
Mail in ballots is and always be a major vector for fraud –why else do they exist in such a major numbers following the covid debacle
“why else do they exist in such a major numbers following the covid debacle”
because it’s convenient. people did it in covid and realized it’s a lot easier. you drop a letter i the mail, instead of going to a place to vote (which in some areas is far from where you live) wait on line (which sometimes can take hours). mail in voting is available globally in many countries.
trump voted by mail.
I live in Oregon which started mail in only voting in 1995. I rarely vote now and there is no way in hell I will vote at all if I have to go to a polling place.
I only vote no on anything that will raise taxes and guess what? My property taxes and utility taxes keep going up. I haven’t voted for people running for anything since Ross Perot because they ALL suck! Besides when it comes to presidential elections candidates could give a flying f*ck about Oregon .
Voting = Suggestion box for slaves.
Oregon has 8 electoral collage votes, CA has 54….think that makes a difference?
Mail in ballots have never and never will be a major vector for fraud.
So Utah, which has all mail-in voting, must be a hotbed of fraud, right? Damn cheating republicans….
More evidence-free nonsense.
“When Trump loses the House (and he will), impeachments will begin. That is precisely what his all-out efforts to steal the election are about.”
How about that, he & Netanyahu have something in common:
Out of Office = into the slammer
He should ask for a pony next time.
The fact remains in the 2020 election:
Statistically impossible.
You know nothing about statistics or common sense.
It is widely understood that Trump told Republicans to vote in person.
More Democrats voted by mail.
One has to have mush for brains to not understand that simple fact.
Not even sure how you are defining the results. In Maryland 1 of every 2 voted by mail. Overwhelming they went for Biden. Trump did win the day of voting. But if everyone voted day of or early voting Trump would have been crushed that way too. Same for every deep blue state. Real difference was in the popular vote count. Something we should switch to anyway.
Statistically not only possible, it would even be likely to vary because the two parties tend to be supported by different demographic groups – who are likely to also differ in voting preference, or at least some of them.
Better you keep silent than prove yourself a fool by speaking, Jimbo. Or there would be mountains of evidence Trump’s lawyers say can be admitted in court, unlike in 2020 when their 60 cases came with literally zero evidence submitted to court. Isn’t evidence important, Jimbo? Or do you not believe in science?
Yes, court proceedings come with the right and power to obtain and produce in court all evidence that favors one’s side. The fraud claimants everywhere came up with bupkis.
Congress should vote for overtime pay for the Supreme Court for the months of October and November just so they are available round the clock. I recognize the need for relief for some issues that may be important close to an event like elections, but they need to codify certain aspects of the elections as locked some months before the event. I would not have allowed redistricting within the year of the election. I would not have allowed Louisiana to alter their basis for redistricting either within the year of the election. But I would change the primary dates if I could. They go on all year long. Completely unnecessary in a non-presidential year. Even in a presidential year it goes on way too long. Adds to the carnival aspect of it all. But those changes would also need to be done before the beginning of a new election year. Just my 2 cents. Or nickel now. I went to the USPS for an 82 cent stamp. I got back 20 cents! They are rounding now as the government is phasing out pennies.
its been his (Trumps) mission for years
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53772526
Today, in Detroit, Taco said mail-in ballots are inherently corrupt except for illness, disability, military deployment, or travel. Sooo, I guess those ballots are incorruptible??? Everyone should just say they are going on vacation and get a mail-in ballot. Problem solved!!!
Mish, thanks for continuing to call out this lunacy. Allowing any of this unconstitutional and unAmerican behavior to be normalized would be awful and signal the end of our amazing country. Please keep calling out the BS, even though you are probably sick of it. Its a thankless task with all the current craziness
“the end of our amazing country” = making America great again, to Trump’s supporters
They want it to be Mississippi from sea to shining sea.
Mississippi and Mar a Lago and nothing in between.
If SCOTUS throws Trump a bone enough times, and it does, then why not just throw all this stuff at their wall and see what sticks? Alito would sign off on a piece of toilet paper filed by the guy.
It interests me that Trump would be disenfranchising a bunch of old people. I guess there are enough of them for his tastes, with drivers and attendants to wheel them through polling place lines on just the right date.
This is another addition to my catalog of things I’ve never fond so darkly entertaining, about things so scary. It has the feeling of living inside a comic strip, created by a malicious author, high on glue.
Funny, when I was at university, I used to have a feeling I was living in a Donald Duck comic.
His desire is clearly unconstitutional. You are too kind Mish, calling this merely delusional. Profoundly ignorant, I would say.
if ‘ignorant’ implies not knowingly malicious, to any degree, then I would (respectfully) disagree.
More deranged than delusional has been and will likely continue to be the case going forward based on the past 1.5 years.
He’s just a cheater. Been that way for decades. Man baby is angry he can’t get his way. Fears he’s gonna get impeached again. Even Bannon fears being impeached! LOL. Last I heard only people actually in government can be impeached.
Maybe Mr. Bannon fears being beached without a bottle handy.