The US Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., as seen on June 29 (local time). [Getty Images]
The US Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., as seen on June 29 (local time). [Getty Images]

One Trump issue a day — The Herald Business international desk delivers a daily briefing on Trump-related news through its newsletter and series. Click "Original Article" below the headline and byline at the top of this article to read more.

The US Supreme Court sided with the Donald Trump administration Monday (local time), allowing a presidential executive order that partially restricts mail-in voting to move forward. However, US media said it remains unclear whether the order can be fully enforced before the November midterm elections, as legal obstacles have not been entirely removed.

According to US media including the Associated Press, the court accepted an emergency application to allow the executive order — signed by Trump on March 31 — to be implemented in this year's midterm elections. Six conservative justices voted in favor; three liberal justices dissented.

The ruling overturned decisions by lower courts. A federal district court in Massachusetts issued an injunction against the order in June, and a federal appeals court upheld that decision on July 25.

The Supreme Court determined that the states that filed suit lacked standing to do so, reasoning that the executive order amounted to an internal directive that caused no harm to the plaintiff states. The court concluded that blocking the order's implementation would risk causing "irreparable harm" to the Trump administration.

However, the court said its disposition of the emergency application "does not mean that all actions the government takes to implement this order are necessarily lawful," adding that the question of legality "will be worked out over time." The ruling did not address the underlying lawfulness of the executive order itself.

"The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, but it remains unclear how much of this measure can be implemented before the rapidly approaching midterm elections," the AP said.

Reuters noted that the order's fate remains uncertain because the Supreme Court took no action on a separate lower court ruling that bars the US Postal Service from carrying out the mail-in voting directive. California's announcement that it would continue pursuing litigation to block the order despite the Supreme Court's decision adds another variable.

The ruling leaves room for additional legal challenges that could further delay the order's implementation, and similar lawsuits have already been filed, the AP said. Time is also running short for the order to produce significant changes in the upcoming midterms, as some states are set to begin mailing out ballots within just a few weeks.

Trump, who has long claimed that mail-in voting was central to what he called fraud in his 2020 presidential election defeat, used the executive order to direct the federal government to compile voter rolls by state and send them to each state, with the Postal Service permitted to mail ballots only to voters on those lists. Twenty-three Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia filed suit, arguing the order violates the US Constitution, which grants states and Congress the authority to set election rules, and sought an injunction against its enforcement.

Separately from the legal battle over the executive order, Trump is aggressively pushing the so-called Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act as a top legislative priority. The bill would require voters to present identification and proof of citizenship at the polls and ban mail-in voting except for military service members, those with illness or disabilities, and travelers. The House passed a budget package last month that included state subsidies to implement the law, but the measure has stalled in the Senate.


yckim6452@heraldcorp.com