The Supreme Court on Monday permitted President Donald Trump to move forward with a controversial executive order targeting mail ballots, but the decision will almost certainly not be the final word in whether the administration can actually implement its far-reaching plan.
At the center of the dispute is an executive order Trump signed in March that gives the US Postal Service an unprecedented role in deciding whether to send mail ballots — a move that has followed years of the president making baseless claims about illegal voting by mail.
But the Supreme Court’s order, which came over the dissent of three liberal justices, doesn’t resolve the legality of Trump’s proposal. The president’s plan for the USPS remains blocked on a nationwide basis. And further court action is almost certain to put Trump’s executive order before the justices again, potentially within a few days. Overnight, the Trump administration asked a lower court to clear another hurdle still blocking implementation of the president’s USPS directives.
SCOTUS’ finding that the states lacked standing was based on the circumstances when their complaints were filed in April, when neither a proposed nor final regulation existed and the alleged harms were considered hypothetical. Those circumstances have now changed, as both proposed and final regulations are in place, allowing the plaintiffs to identify specific provisions and explain how they would be harmed if the rule takes effect. The Court appears to be signaling that the facts are materially different now and that the standing question could therefore produce a different outcome. The timing may also be significant, given that the Trump administration announced its final rule on Friday, just before the Court issued its decision. With roughly 75 days remaining before the election, the next question is whether Judge Talwani or another liberal judge will attempt to block or delay implementation of the final rule in the coming days or weeks.
RELATED: Trump administration violated court order on mail-voting rules, judge says









