Delusional Trump Asks Supreme Court to Allow His Order Restricting Mail Voting

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.