The Supreme Court on Monday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, that imposes restrictions on mail-in voting. The court paused an injunction by a federal judge in Boston that had barred the federal government from applying provisions of that executive order in the November elections to 23 states (along with the District of Columbia) challenging their legality.
A separate ruling by the same judge, in a case filed by a different set of plaintiffs, temporarily prohibits the U.S. Postal Service from implementing one provision of the executive order anywhere in the United States. That ruling remains in effect, at least for now.
In its 10-page, unsigned opinion, the majority said that it was too soon for courts to consider the states' challenge because the order has not yet been carried out " which means that the states have not suffered the kind of injury that allows their lawsuit to move forward.
www.scotusblog.com
The court's three Democratic appointees dissented. In a 23-page opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the majority of "[t]aking its eye off the ball" and thus "miss[ing] the Government's actual objective: to secure our imprimatur for its effort to foment chaos ahead of the November elections."
The Supreme Court on Monday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, that imposes restrictions on mail-in voting. The court paused an injunction by a federal judge in Boston that had barred the federal government from applying provisions of that executive order in the November elections to 23 states (along with the District of Columbia) challenging their legality.
A separate ruling by the same judge, in a case filed by a different set of plaintiffs, temporarily prohibits the U.S. Postal Service from implementing one provision of the executive order anywhere in the United States. That ruling remains in effect, at least for now.
In its 10-page, unsigned opinion, the majority said that it was too soon for courts to consider the states' challenge because the order has not yet been carried out " which means that the states have not suffered the kind of injury that allows their lawsuit to move forward.
www.scotusblog.com
The court's three Democratic appointees dissented. In a 23-page opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the majority of "[t]aking its eye off the ball" and thus "miss[ing] the Government's actual objective: to secure our imprimatur for its effort to foment chaos ahead of the November elections."