Thread: 🔴 BREAKING: Supreme Court on Mail-In Voting

JUST IN: Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson Denies President Trump’s Request to Immediately Reinstate Key Parts of Executive Order on Mail-In Ballots

by Cristina Laila Jul. 27, 2026 6:20 pm



Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson on Monday evening denied President Trump’s request to immediately reinstate key parts of his executive order on mail-in ballots.

Justice Jackson gave the Democrat-run plaintiff states seven days to respond to Trump’s emergency application.

Last month, a federal judge blocked key parts of President Trump’s executive order on mail-in ballots.

Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, blocked President Trump’s March 2025 executive order, specifically his attempt to create a federal voter list.

In March 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14248: Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.

“Free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion are fundamental to maintaining our constitutional Republic. The right of American citizens to have their votes properly counted and tabulated, without illegal dilution, is vital to determining the rightful winner of an election,” the executive order said.

“Under the Constitution, State governments must safeguard American elections in compliance with Federal laws that protect Americans’ voting rights and guard against dilution by illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error,” the EO said.

“et the United States has not adequately enforced Federal election requirements that, for example, prohibit States from counting ballots received after Election Day or prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote,” the executive order said.

“Several Federal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 1015 and 611, prohibit foreign nationals from registering to vote or voting in Federal elections,” Trump said.

Last month a separate federal judge permanently banned Trump from implementing his executive order that required proof of citizenship when they register to vote.

Boston-based US District Judge Denise Casper, an Obama appointee, said the Constitution “does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”

On Saturday, a federal appeals court refused to allow President Trump enforce key parts of his executive order.

President Trump’s DOJ Solicitor General John Sauer filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court earlier Monday.

“And the injunction is especially indefensible because the agencies are still deliberating over how (if at all) to implement the Order, yet the district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful,” John Sauer wrote.

Justice Jackson later Monday denied the DOJ’s request.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...sident-trumps/

Supreme Court upholds Trump's order to overhaul mail-in ballots

• Josephine Walker
• Avery Lotz

Voting rights activists protest outside the Supreme Court on October 15, 2025. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images.

President Trump can implement an executive order restricting mail-in ballots just months before the midterm elections, the Supreme Court said Monday.

Why it matters: It's a win for the president, who has opposed mail-in voting for years, but the legal battle is far from over, and the exact impact on November's elections is still unclear.

Driving the news: The Supreme Court said in the unsigned order that states lack standing to challenge the executive order because it was an "internal directive" that didn't harm the states that sued.

• "This internal directive does not regulate the States' voter registration processes," the court's order reads. "Nor does it impinge on the States' authority 'to create and enforce a legal code' for elections."
  
  
• The decision overturns a federal appeals court ruling that found the order could impose "unprecedented levels of involvement by federal officials in how states administer elections" and could confuse and disenfranchise voters.
  
  
• "The Court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful, the court noted. "On that score, time will tell."

The other side: The court's three liberal justices—Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—dissented.

• The decision did not address whether the administration has the authority to implement Trump's order, Sotomayor noted in her dissent, which Kagan joined. Rather, they argued, "today's decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges."
  
  
• Jackson echoed them, saying the court had "not foreclosed States from challenging this blatantly unconstitutional Order. But it declines to explain when, exactly, is the right time to bring a meritorious election-rule claim challenging unconstitutional interference with electoral processes."

Catch up quick: Trump's executive order, issued in March of this year, directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile a list of citizens eligible to vote and called for the U.S. Postal Service to accept ballots only from voters on those lists.

• Eligible voter rolls constantly change as people move, die, turn 18 or change their names. A national list would quickly become outdated, according to voting rights groups.
  

• A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general challenged the order.
  
  

Between the lines: Under the Constitution, states—not the president—administer elections.

• Congress does have the authority to pass legislation that alters election rules.
  
  
• Government reports and voting rights groups have consistently found voter fraud is rare and, when it occurs, is not widespread enough to affect election outcomes.

What we're watching: Trump has repeatedly pressured Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would impose stricter voting rules.

• The bill would not end mail-in voting and faces an uphill climb in Congress. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has repeatedly said it lacks the support to pass.
  
  

Editor's note: This story has been updated throughout with additional information.