Rules:
  1. Rule 1.
  2. Please use a "*" or "nm" in the subject line to denote topic only posts.
  3. Any post or attempt to take things "off the board" will result in a ban. Do not use other poster's real names or personal info.
  4. Don't be a Tom Izzo.

Admins - Rich, BBA, Nikos
Ceremonial Moderator - the wino
Moderator Emeritus - Beave
Honorary Moderators - BigLake, Blue Man

POTY - Craig

📌 🏈 Michigan at Minnesota*
📌 To register, email victardgoblue@gmail *

The Victors

Post a New Message

NYT: A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with plans to restrict mail-in voting before the midterm elections. (m)

Posted on August 24, 2026 at 05:35:43 PM by crumbs (edited August 24, 2026 at 05:38:24 PM)

In an emergency order, the justices said President Trump could proceed with implementing an executive order he had signed, which directed the U.S. Postal Service to help decide which voters should receive mail-in ballots. Under the executive order, the Department of Homeland Security will also create lists of U.S. citizens that the administration believes could be used to monitor voter rolls for noncitizens.

The decision means the administration can move ahead with planning for restricting the use of mail ballots even as a lower court continues to weigh the legality of Mr. Trump’s executive order. But with little more than two months until Election Day — and considerably less before early voting begins in many states — it remains unclear whether the White House’s rules will be in effect for a midterm election in which control of both chambers is at stake.

The order by the court was unsigned, as is typical in such emergency rulings. The majority wrote that it agreed with the government’s argument that it should be able to move forward with its plans, finding that the Trump administration was “likely to suffer irreparable harm” unless the justices lifted a freeze that had been imposed by lower courts.

The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warning that the majority “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.”

The majority said the states that challenged the president’s order could not demonstrate that they were sufficiently harmed by voting rules that had not yet taken effect. The justices cautioned that their order was preliminary and not a final decision about whether the administration’s order “will necessarily be lawful” once the plans are complete. “On that score, time will tell,” the majority said in the 10-page, unsigned order.

That could mean the legal battle will return to the justices, perhaps quickly, as the administration moves to implement the president’s order before the midterms.

Back to the board

Thread:

Log in to reply.

Probation ends …