The Justice Department escalated its fight to resurrect a Trump executive order that would overhaul mail-in voting, asking the Supreme Court to intervene after federal judges blocked the directive in more than half the country weeks before November's midterm elections.
The emergency appeal challenges a recent decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a lower court's ban on the order across 23 states and Washington, D.C. The administration is asking the justices to let the policy take effect while litigation continues in lower courts.
Trump signed the order in March directing the federal government to compile what he called a "state citizenship list" and restrict mail ballots to people appearing on it. The plan would require US Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration to create the federal voter eligibility database, with the Postal Service delivering ballots only to those included.
The administration framed the measure as a defense against noncitizen voting, though election officials and Democratic attorneys have highlighted that such voting is extremely rare and already a felony punishable by deportation.
Democratic leaders in the 23 states argued the Constitution grants states and Congress exclusive power over election rules, not the president. Their legal teams warned the order creates opportunities for manipulation and could produce administrative chaos close to the general election.
US District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston halted the order in June, blocking its implementation for the November elections. A three-judge panel from the First Circuit upheld her decision over the weekend, rejecting the administration's bid to overturn the injunction.
Rather than wait for further appeals court proceedings, the Justice Department went directly to the Supreme Court with an emergency request, a tactic typically reserved for situations where lower court rulings cause immediate, irreparable harm. The move signals the administration's determination to deploy the policy before voters head to polls.
The dispute sits at the intersection of presidential power and state control over elections, one of the most contentious constitutional questions in modern litigation. How the Supreme Court handles the request could reshape what tools future administrations can use to influence voting procedures.
Author James Rodriguez: "This is a raw grab for federal control over how states run their elections, and the courts are right to pump the brakes before November."
Comments