Wire flash
US Supreme Court rejects Trump emergency motion to restrict mail-in voting
Editorial responsibility
- No named human review is recorded for this page.
- Source reporting is collected, normalized, translated or condensed automatically when needed.
- Automatically published source-backed update
The US Supreme Court rejected President Donald Trump's emergency motion to restrict mail-in voting, dealing him a legal defeat less than two months before the congressional elections. The court cited difficulties in implementing the regulation by decree, noting that several states, including North Carolina, had already begun sending election materials. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that while Trump's proposal might be lawful long-term, state and local election authorities lacked sufficient time to implement it properly before the elections. Only two of the nine justices dissented. The civil rights organization ACLU welcomed the decision as 'a great victory for voting rights, electoral integrity, and democracy.' ACLU representative Sophia Lin Lakin said the administration repeatedly tests the limits of its power, adding that voters, not the White House, will decide the November elections. Trump has repeatedly claimed without evidence that mail-in voting leads to fraud. The midterm elections are considered a significant mood test for Trump's second term, with Republicans facing a potential defeat in the House and the Senate possibly ending in a deadlock.
Source report
Court Ruling
The Supreme Court has rejected US President Donald Trump's emergency motion to restrict mail-in voting, delivering a legal defeat to the president less than two months before the congressional elections. The decision was reached by a clear majority.
The civil rights organization ACLU welcomed the ruling, calling it "a great victory for voting rights, electoral integrity, and democracy."
Court's Justification
The court cited difficulties in implementing the regulation ordered by Trump via executive decree. Several states, including North Carolina, have already begun sending election materials to voters.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that while Trump's proposal might be lawful in the long term, "state and local election authorities" did not have "enough time" to "properly implement" the regulation before the elections. Only two of the nine justices held a dissenting opinion.
Context
Six of the nine Supreme Court justices are conservatives, three of whom were nominated by Trump himself. Despite this, the court has handed Trump a series of defeats during his second term.
ACLU representative Sophia Lin Lakin stated: "This administration repeatedly tests the limits of its power, as if the rules for our elections were mere suggestions that can be ignored when they do not fit the President's agenda."
She added: "The President does not run our elections, the Post Office does not decide whose ballot counts. It is the voters – not the White House – who will decide the November elections."
Previous Legal Defeat
Just days earlier, Trump suffered another legal setback in the dispute over mail-in voting. An appeals court blocked a Trump decree last Thursday that would have made postal voting more difficult. The Appeals Court for the District of Massachusetts upheld a lower court ruling against which the government had filed an appeal, sending the matter to the Supreme Court.
Background on Mail-In Voting Restrictions
Without providing evidence, Trump has repeatedly claimed that mail-in voting leads to fraud. He sought to restrict it to individuals listed on "state citizenship lists." Specifically, the US Postal Service would only deliver election materials to people registered on lists previously compiled by immigration and social security authorities. The opposition Democrats filed a lawsuit against this measure.
Political Implications
The midterm elections, marking the halfway point of Trump's second term, are considered the most significant mood test so far for the 80-year-old president. His Republicans face a potential defeat in the House of Representatives, while the Senate could end in a deadlock. Should the Democrats win, they intend to block numerous presidential initiatives and could initiate another impeachment proceeding.
(Source: afp)
Source
taz.de - taz.deWestern