The Supreme Court of the United States decided this Monday not to greenlight President Donald Trump's plan to restrict mail-in voting ahead of the midterm elections, known as 'midterms', scheduled for November 3. With this ruling, the highest judicial body upholds the order of a lower court that had declared the initiative promoted by the occupant of the White House illegal.
"The request for suspension presented before Judge (of the Supreme Court Ketanji Brown) Jackson and referred by her to the Court is denied," the Supreme Court stated in a brief communication in which it adds that "the Government has little chance of succeeding on the merits of its appeal against the precautionary measure issued" by District Judge Indira Talwani in early September.
The document, which Europa Press has accessed, includes two differing opinions. The first, more succinct, corresponds to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, nominated by Trump in 2018. The judge argues that, while "there is at least a reasonable probability that the final rule" promoted by the White House "fits within the legal powers of the Postal Service," its application "in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious, thus violating the Administrative Procedure Act, given that state and local election officials do not have enough time to implement it reasonably before the elections."
In contrast, Justice Samuel Alito expresses a different view, whose argument extends over eight pages and is supported by Clarence Thomas. In his dissenting opinion, he argues that "some of the plaintiffs lack standing, while the rest raise a claim that this Court has recently characterized as a 'last resort' that 'rarely succeeds'."
Alito also reproaches "the plaintiff states" for criticizing "the timeline for implementing the rule (...) when they and the courts that hear their claims are responsible for much of the delay." In his view, "the Government has met the necessary requirements for the suspension; therefore, I respectfully dissent."
None of the other seven members of the Supreme Court, composed of nine judges in total —six of them with a conservative tendency—, has made public the sense of their vote, and the resolution disseminated by the court also does not specify how many magistrates have positioned themselves in favor or against.
A Trump order repeatedly questioned in the courts
This is the third occasion on which the Trump Administration urgently appeals to the Supreme Court to try to save this regulation, after various groups and states have promoted legal actions to stop it.
The High Court had already ruled in favor of the White House in a previous proceeding, estimating that the states governed by Democrats probably did not have sufficient legitimacy to challenge the president's executive order, one of the arguments that Judge Alito now resumes. However, this latest litigation has focused on how the United States Postal Service (USPS) should apply the presidential directive as the election date approaches.
The lawsuits were filed shortly after Trump signed an executive order in March against mail-in voting, which, according to the president himself, favors electoral fraud. The plaintiffs have argued in several of these appeals that the regulation exceeds the president's powers, while the states led by Democrats have warned that the plan would generate a real chaos, considering it unfeasible to meet its demands before the November elections. Some of them have gone even further, warning that, in their opinion, the measure would leave millions of citizens without the possibility of voting by mail.
Among the states that challenged the order is California. Its Attorney General, Rob Bonta, has celebrated on social media the decision made by the Supreme Court this Tuesday, which he has defined as "a victory for our democracy and a resounding reaffirmation of the rule of law."
"What was at stake in this litigation was of utmost importance. The vote is the fundamental right from which all other rights emanate, and the 50 states allow, in one way or another, to cast a vote by mail," Bonta emphasized.