#elections-clause
6 entries with this tag
After a Yearlong Campaign to Restrict Mail Voting and Repeated Emergency Trips to a Friendly Supreme Court, Trump Was Finally Told No: the Court Left Judge Talwani's Block in Place, Refusing to Let His USPS Mail-Ballot Rule Take Effect for the 2026 Midterms — Finding the Administration Unlikely to Win and, Per Kavanaugh, That Imposing the Rushed Rule Now Would Be "Arbitrary and Capricious"; Only Thomas and Alito Publicly Dissented
On September 14, 2026, the Supreme Court refused to let Trump's mail-voting restrictions take effect for the 2026 midterm elections — leaving in place the preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani and denying the administration's emergency bid to lift it. The practical result: voters will not face the new hurdles this fall. The Court's majority said the administration was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring, allowed that there is "at least a fair prospect" the USPS rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority, but concluded that applying it in the 2026 elections "would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections" — precisely the rushed, unworkable timeline that a whistleblower, the states, and Judge Talwani had all warned about. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented; no other justice disclosed a vote to let the rule proceed. This is a defeat for Trump, and a notable one: the same Court that in August lifted an earlier injunction in his favor declined, weeks later, to clear his signature voter-suppression scheme in time for the election it was built for. The rule would have required states to upload voter lists to USPS and meet new ballot-envelope and barcode requirements, letting the Postal Service withhold ballots from voters not on a federal database. For this election, it is dead.
A Federal Judge Blocked Trump's Mail-Ballot Scheme Outright — Ruling the Postal Service Rule Likely Unconstitutional Because Only States and Congress Can Set Election Rules, and Finding That Its Rushed Timeline Would Make Voter Disenfranchisement "Practically Inevitable" Before the Midterms — a Real Defeat, Even as His Administration Had Already Raced to the Supreme Court the Day Before to Override Her
On September 4, 2026, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Postal Service from implementing the mail-ballot rule at the heart of Trump's executive order to restrict voting by mail — a durable block that replaces the temporary one she had issued on August 27. Her findings were sharp: the rule is likely unlawful and unconstitutional because it usurps the states' authority to run their own elections (a power the Constitution gives to states and Congress, not the president), and its rushed timeline would make voter disenfranchisement "practically inevitable" before the November midterms, leaving states an "impossible" schedule to comply. The rule she blocked would have forced state and local election officials to submit their ballot envelopes for USPS "design review," add unique tracking barcodes, and upload voters' names, addresses, and barcode data to a new federal portal — and barred the Postal Service from sending ballots to eligible voters until it approved all of that, regardless of looming deadlines. This is a genuine defeat for Trump, and a detailed judicial repudiation of the scheme. But it may be fragile: the administration had already gone to the Supreme Court the day before asking the justices to override her, and it is expected to appeal. The ruling is documented here because of what it establishes on the record — that a court, examining the actual mechanics, found Trump's mail-voting plan both likely illegal and a near-certain engine of disenfranchisement.
Two Days After a Whistleblower Warned That the Postal Service's Rushed Ballot System Could Reject Votes in Bulk — and After Already Winning One Round at the Supreme Court in August — Trump's Administration Raced Back to the Same Court a Second Time, Asking the Justices to Lift a Fresh Federal Order Blocking the USPS Rule So It Can Switch the System On Before the November Midterms
On September 3, 2026, the Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court for the second time in its fight to restrict mail-in voting before the midterms — asking the justices, on an emergency basis, to pause an order by a federal judge in Boston that blocks the U.S. Postal Service from implementing parts of its new mail-ballot rule. The sequence is relentless. Trump's March executive order directs the Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on federally compiled citizenship lists; two courts blocked it as unconstitutional; in August the Supreme Court, 6-3, lifted one of those injunctions; USPS then issued a final rule on August 26; and on August 27 a federal court temporarily blocked the agency from implementing parts of it, with that restraining order set to expire September 10 and a ruling on a longer-term injunction expected within days. Rather than wait for that ruling, the administration went straight back to the Supreme Court to try to clear the block now. The timing is the tell: just two days earlier, a federal whistleblower warned Congress that this very USPS system was rushed, untested, and designed with a "zero-percent failure policy" that could reject entire batches of ballots. The administration is, in effect, asking the Supreme Court to let it switch on a machine it was just warned could disenfranchise millions — racing the calendar toward November, and using the emergency docket to keep the fight on procedure so the courts never have to answer the actual question: whether a president has any authority to run elections at all. He does not.
The Supreme Court Cleared One of the Two Legal Roadblocks to Trump's Mail-Ballot Executive Order — a Decree That Would Let the Postal Service Refuse to Deliver Mail Ballots From States That Don't Hand Over Their Voter Rolls, Months Before the Midterms — Over a Dissent Warning It "Needlessly Injects Chaos" Into the Election; Justice Jackson Called It a "Kafkaesque Nightmare"
On August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court lifted one of two injunctions that had frozen Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting — an order that, among other things, would have the U.S. Postal Service decline to deliver mail ballots from any state that refuses to hand the federal government a list of every voter receiving one, impose new federal design and tracking standards on mail ballots, and put the Department of Homeland Security in the business of screening state voter rolls. The unsigned order fell along ideological lines. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning the ruling "needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections" and calling the situation a "Kafkaesque nightmare"; Justices Sotomayor and Kagan also dissented. Crucially, the order is not yet in effect: a second nationwide injunction — won by the League of Women Voters and other groups on August 11 — still stands, and legal experts expect the trial court to quickly block the Postal Service's newly finalized rule too. But the direction is unmistakable. The Constitution's Elections Clause gives states, not the president, the power to run federal elections, and two federal courts found Trump's order unconstitutional on exactly that ground. The Court didn't bless the order — it explicitly said implementing measures could still be unlawful — but it pulled away one of the barriers holding back a presidential attempt to dictate how Americans vote, mere months before they do.
After 23 States and Two Federal Courts Blocked It as Unconstitutional, Trump Asked the Supreme Court to Let His Mail-Voting Order Take Effect Before the Midterms — an Order That Would Bar the Postal Service From Mailing Ballots to Anyone Not on State-Submitted Lists, Put DHS in Charge of Screening Voter Rolls, and Prioritize Prosecuting Election Officials
On July 27, 2026, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court — via an emergency "shadow docket" application filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer — to lift lower-court blocks and let a sweeping executive order restricting mail voting take effect in time for the November midterms. The March executive order would: require states to submit lists of eligible mail voters to the U.S. Postal Service, which would be barred from sending a ballot to anyone not on those lists; give the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security new roles screening state voter rolls for supposed noncitizens; mandate individualized barcodes on ballot envelopes; and "prioritize" federal prosecution of state election officials who send ballots to ineligible voters. Twenty-three Democratic-led states sued, noting the Constitution leaves the running of elections to the states, not the White House. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked it as a separation-of-powers violation, and the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that block over the weekend, finding the order would "sow confusion" and "threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters." Sauer argued the injunction was "extraordinary" and that the order "merely sets forth general policy guidance." Voting-rights groups called it "plainly unconstitutional... yet another attempt by the president to unlawfully take control of elections from the states, deter eligible voters from casting ballots, and sow chaos as the November midterms approach." It is the same campaign documented here through the FEMA counterterrorism-funding blackmail, the purge of the Election Assistance Commission, and the primetime "China stole 220 million voter files" speech — now escalated to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to green-light federal control over an election the president has spent months insisting will be stolen.
FEMA Will Withhold 20% of a $1 Billion Anti-Terrorism Grant Program — Money for Cybersecurity and Protecting Crowded Public Spaces — Unless States Rewrite Their Elections to Trump's Demands Before the Midterms, a Power the Constitution Gives Him Zero Authority Over
The Trump administration is holding counterterrorism money hostage to force states to change how they run elections before the November 2026 midterms. FEMA's fiscal-year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program notice says the agency will withhold 20% of each state's total award — from a $1.064 billion program that funds cybersecurity, emergency planning, training, equipment, and protection of crowded public spaces — until the state proves it has complied with new "Election Security" requirements. Those requirements: submit a plan to abandon electronic voting systems that use bar codes/QR codes and move to hand-marked paper ballots (eliminating ballot-marking devices); conduct 5% manual post-election audits; reconcile voters against ballots cast; run the entire voter roll through the DHS "SAVE" citizenship database within 120 days; and verify the citizenship of every poll worker and vendor. In FY2025 the election-related hold was just 3% for three modest actions; FY2026 escalates it to 20% and a far larger list. The 3% election-security set-aside and the 20% holdback are explicitly separate — meeting one does not release the other. The grants flow largely to populous urban states: New York alone expects about $204 million in FY2026. Switching to hand-marked paper ballots would cost states hundreds of millions — Georgia's Republican secretary of state estimated $66 million for his state alone. The Constitution gives the president no authority over election administration; a federal judge recently wrote exactly that while blocking parts of Trump's anti-voting executive order, and another judge blocked DHS from using SAVE to purge voters, finding the administration "knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens." The DOJ has separately sued 30 states for refusing to hand over voter lists and warned election officials in all 50 states they could face criminal charges. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul: the administration is "once again putting New Yorkers' lives at risk to forward their political agenda." Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows: "Trump is trying to meddle in how states run American elections because he's terrified of losing power after the 2026 midterms."