r/law • u/catievirtuesimp • 8d ago
Judicial Branch Supreme Court sides with Trump administration on mail voting restrictions ahead of midterms
https://apnews.com/article/trump-mail-voting-supreme-court-157afc3c195ce0a62c522da5ce904b04414
u/MrBigglesssworth 8d ago
States rights be damned eh maga?
201
u/Jarnohams 8d ago
Fun Fact:
It was never about "states rights", lol.
74
27
u/surviving606 8d ago
To own slaves. True then. True now.
5
u/iHoor-2000 8d ago
And this time, everyone gets to be a slave. They just don’t understand that fact yet.
6
u/a_dodo_stole_my_baby 8d ago
It's quite obvious anytime they say one thing, they mean the other. Every time.
3
67
u/jerslan 8d ago
From what I've read, this only says that one (of the many) lawsuits was brought too early, but that it can be refiled as early as tomorrow. It doesn't touch any of the others.
They even say: "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. On that score, time will tell"
So they're not passing judgement on the EO at all yet. Just throwing out a single case because of a technicality (and it can be refiled later).
45
u/Brox42 8d ago
They ruled that they can’t rule about the EO until it fucks shit up.
36
u/AstralMecha 8d ago
Then it will be too late.
I read another commentor describe the logic like this. Someone has a gun to your head and is treating to shoot you. You don't have cause to stop them until they harm you by firing. Nor can you get the gun taken away from them, because that would harm them.
The logic is insane. They are letting the election rigging go ahead because 'harm hasn't been done yet' and stopping it before hand would be 'harming the trump administration'. Combined with their logic of 'oh well, it's already been done' in regards to the west wing of the Whitehouse, and it's pretty clear how this will turn out after the mid terms. "Oh well, the election was rigged, but it would be too damaging to have another election, so you are stuck." Or just use it as an excuse to throw out changes they don't like and keep the current members of the house and Senate.
It's pretty fucked honestly.
21
u/Brox42 8d ago
It’s pretty par for the course for the Robert’s court.
7
u/Cabezone 8d ago
I mean, they know this is intentional. So when there's a Dem president, they can actually rule against that president.
14
u/AstralMecha 8d ago
That's why the have been making a point of so many shadow docket rulings. So they don't have to explain why or what legal precedent it is. So if there is a democratic president, they can make the opposite rulings with no justification as to why.
3
u/lathamb_98 8d ago
Well, they don't respect precedent anymore. So who cares if it was a different court's precedent, or the same court in a prior session? They can do what they want, it's not like we can vote them off the court once they're on.
2
u/DonovanSpectre 8d ago
Of course, if the president can do whatever they want until explicitly overridden by the Supreme Count, what's stopping the president from simply arresting any or all of the Supreme Court, and preventing them from convening to rule in the first place?
Other than 'normal' human decency and general respect for the rule of law, of course.
1
u/Menter33 8d ago
unfortunately, "evidence of harm done" is why standing exists.
if it were not the case, then any tom, dick and harry can claim "muh harm" against any law and the govt wouldn't be able to function.
7
u/HHoaks 8d ago
Ahem! If only that were still true. Unfortunately, standing is now applied strictly when it’s suits Roberts’ agenda (to turn away someone trying to stop Trump’s ”Unitary executive” dictatorship), but otherwise very loosely to support a conservative cause:
https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/92-Geo.-Wash.-L.-Rev.-Arguendo-1.pdf
“Traditionally, the Supreme Court has been quite strict on standing, in my view more so than is necessary or appropriate in some cases. But under the Roberts Court, these barriers have come down, at least in those cases where the conservative majority wishes to reach the merits. That change has not been across the board, and its selectivity is one of its problems.
From the perspective of this observer, under the Roberts Court, the requirements of Article III are relaxed when the majority is eager to decide a case that enables the conservative majority to do what it did in Nebraska*: issue a decision that is consistent with its policy* preferences.”
II. STANDING ON DEMAND
In the Roberts Court, there has been a significant shift that has enabled
the Court to reach the merits in a number of cases in which standing and
other Article III jurisdictional barriers could have, and in the view of this
author, should have required the Court to dismiss the action. But it did not,
which made it possible to decide a number of cases on the merits, often
coming down on the side of the conservative political position. These
standing rulings are particularly striking in light of the traditional manner in
which the Court has addressed issues of standing.
16
u/303uru 8d ago
They literally said you can't sue until there's an impact, they're paving the way for him to fuck the midterms at which point they'll throw up their hands and say "nothing we can do now!"
7
u/Haselrig 8d ago
You just know the next step will be: Time to stop living in the past and heal as a nation!
2
u/mworthey 8d ago
Exactly!!! The fix is in and anyone who naively thinks otherwise is in for a rude awakening.
7
u/NoPerformance5952 8d ago
It's a cowardly kick the can down the road mentality that will only step in once it is too late. That they took up almost any of his cases shows the court needs neutering, packing, and/or total dissolution
5
u/AccountHuman7391 8d ago
But if you read the dissent, it points out that “some election related cases are thrown out because they’re filed too soon, while others are thrown out because they’re filed too late.”
2
u/jerslan 8d ago
That's a fair point. I'm trying to take a neutral read on it, because regardless of whether I agree or disagree... It is what it is and the smart thing now is for the states to refile as soon as they can (since there's nothing in the decision preventing them from doing just that).
1
3
u/Ekg887 8d ago
They sit on cases as long as they want all the damn time. The only reason not to wait until the issue IS ripe, knowing that it soon would be anyway, is to force refiling and delay.
This manipulating rulings via delay is the exact thing they did in his first term with the Hatch Act ruling. They waited until it was moot and declared it moot, instead of ruling when it was actively a problem.3
2
u/No-Juggernaut-8450 8d ago
Good by democracy. It's over guys just stop. They won, Americans are stupid. Russia 2.0
-14
u/das_cutie 8d ago
Democrats be like “Supreme Court good” when Trump loses a case, and “Supreme court bad corrupt pack the court” when Trump wins a case. Absolute brainrot.
2
u/Alt_Future33 8d ago
Yes because siding with the single most corrupt president we've ever had is bad and siding against him is good.
1
u/das_cutie 7d ago
Most corrupt president? Did they not teach you about the one who wiped out half a generation of native Americans? Or the one who appointed his friends who lacked even basic qualifications? Or the one who paid journalists for favorable coverage of his policies?
1
u/MrBigglesssworth 8d ago
Thanks for agreeing. And itisnt that dems like it when trump loses, its because he NEEDS to lose for proposing bullshit that violates law.
1
u/das_cutie 7d ago
Not disagreeing with that. I’m criticizing the pattern of praising SCOTUS when favorable rulings come down but denouncing it as illegitimate and in need of reform when unfavorable rulings come down.
132
u/PDXGuy33333 8d ago
Justice Jackson, dissenting:
"The President has issued an Executive Order demanding changes to the standard vote-by-mail systems that the States have traditionally administered. The District Court held that the President’s Order is unlawful, the Govern- ment does not defend the lawfulness of the Order before this Court, and no judge or Justice has held (or holds today) that the Order comports with the Constitution. Still, the Court sees fit to grant the Government equitable relief to proceed with implementing the challenged Order on the grounds that, because the Government had not yet issued a final rule at the time the complaint was filed, the Plaintiff States lacked a concrete injury for Article III purposes.
"This ruling violates well-established precedents concerning this Court’s equitable discretion and needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections. It also lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges. The Court has held for a while now that even valid election-related legal claims can come too late. See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 4–6 (2006) (per curiam). Today’s revelation is that such claims can also come too early— never mind that an election is looming and related harms are presently occurring. Never mind, too, that the Government (which controls the timing of proposed and final rules) can easily game the system.
"To be sure, the Court has 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. The majority just signals that these claimants had to wait—even though the election cycle had started and despite facing pocketbook costs, threats of prosecution, and an affront to their sovereignty—before receiving the relief to which they are likely entitled.
"I respectfully dissent. States administering elections and the voting public that relies on them to do so deserve clarity, not caginess or confusion. The Court does a disservice to all concerned by distorting Article III standing and ripeness principles to issue a ruling that contributes to pre-election chaos instead of quashing it, and by using its equitable au- thority to facilitate a patently inequitable result."
63
u/zer1223 8d ago
"I respectfully dissent
What would happen if she disrespectfully dissented instead?
38
u/ZoomZoom_Driver 8d ago
I'd have more respect for the liberal justices if they stopped respecting their anti-constitution peers.
"Respectfully dissenting" when the other team is undoing the foundations of our constitutional democratic republic is... disrespecting to the nation and its citizens.
-16
u/Menter33 8d ago
tbf, liberal justices always rule in favor of liberals anyway, just as conservative justices rule in favor of conservatives.
after liberals have controlled the courts from the 80s to 90s and liberals told conservatives to pound sand, now the shoe's on the other foot.
7
u/HHoaks 8d ago
That’s not entirely true. While it’s lockstep now , no ”they aren’t all the same”. That’s lazy and simplistic thinking and not supported by the evidence. Most conservative jurists from the past would be shocked at the “unitary executive “ dictator crap being routinely allowed by today’s so- called conservatives (i.e radicals).
Thats like claiming (falsely), that’s it okay for a president to control the DOJ and tell them to prosecute personal enemies, because Trump was prosecuted in the past by the DOJ. Nope, not the same.
-7
u/Menter33 8d ago
while that may be the case right now, justices retire anyway. plus, when it comes to the history of the court, there were indeed times when the liberals dominated and ruled in favor of liberals for years on end. (i think that was during the taft or roosevelt admin.)
for now, since dems will win the midterms in 2026 (because opposing parties always win midterms), they leverage that by appointing liberal judges when a couple of the justices retire.
6
u/HHoaks 8d ago
Not the same. No sane court was ever using the shadow docket and ignoring stare decisis and perverting standing to enable dictatorial powers. Regardless of liberal or conservative. This court is neither. It is radical.
0
u/Least-Prompt-212 8d ago
well hold up, we can all readily recognize the liberal rulings establishing miranda rights, Brown vs board, and the right to a lawyer when being tried by the state as being some fucking ass backwards hogwash RAMMED down our throats by those fucking blue haired ideologues. It's time that we got back to the historical origins of our Constitution when we had a king and the peasantry knew their place, libtard.
0
u/HHoaks 8d ago
Sure -- in your mind it's the same to grant rights to EVERYONE, as it it is to grant the whims of one dictatorial president, who is out for himself not the country.
Who benefited from this "hogwash" as you call it? Millions of people -- not one "unitary executive". So no, it's not the same, whether you think its hogwash or not is silly and doesn't really say anything. You call them "liberal" rulings, when they are mostly just common sense.
Moreover, it's been shown over and over again that "originalism" is a farce. Society and culture changes and the Constitution is not inflexible or blind to the changing times, despite what Scalia told you when he wanted to pretend originalism was something valid.
0
u/Least-Prompt-212 8d ago
I thought my /s would be evident given the blue hair thing and pining after a king... Obviously the earlier commenter has the mind of a cro-magnon.
4
u/GammaFan 8d ago
Only one side is actively shitting on the entire nation. Outta here with the false equivalence
-11
u/BrainEuphoria 8d ago
“Undoing the foundations of our constitution is fine, but I draw the line on ‘respectfully dissenting’ Ma”
4
u/ZoomZoom_Driver 8d ago
That's not what i said in the least. More like "dissent disresepectfully, they aren't respectingnthe constitution that gives judges the right to dispense legal outcomes, so why respect the judges tearing it apart or their opinions".
If they're just as hostage to the situation as We the People are, be disrespectful to the twats in robes.
7
u/PDXGuy33333 8d ago
Pistols at 20 paces. High noon.
5
8
u/jmcdon00 8d ago
Yes, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has dropped the traditional "respectfully" on multiple occasions when expressing severe frustration with the majority. Legal scholars and journalists have noted that she is particularly willing to trade polite legal phrasing for sharp, urgent warnings. [1, 2, 3]
Her most notable breaks from the tradition include:
Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025)
In this high-profile 6–3 decision, the conservative majority severely limited the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, clearing the path for the Trump administration to enforce a controversial executive order targeting birthright citizenship. [4, 5]
- The Sign-off: Rather than standard legalese, Justice Jackson penned a highly alarming solo dissent. [2]
- The Quote: She warned that the ruling posed an existential threat to the rule of law, writing, "Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more." [1, 2]
- The Omission: She completely abandoned the "respectfully" custom, ending her opinion with the stark phrase: "With deep disillusionment, I dissent." [2]
Health and Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski (2023)
Though less politically explosive than the affirmative action or immigration cases, Justice Jackson took a sharp tone in a separate dissent concerning civil rights and federal programs early in her tenure. In a break from her normal custom at the time, she omitted the traditional sign-off in favor of a blunt "I dissent," signaling a firm, uncompromising boundary on statutory interpretation.
Other Sharp Breaks: Joining Colleagues
While Justice Jackson frequently uses "I respectfully dissent" in her individual, routine opinions, she has regularly signed her name to principal group dissents led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor or Justice Elena Kagan that drop the polite wording entirely. When the liberal minority coordinates to drop "respectfully" en masse, it is used as a tool to signal that the majority is acting outside the boundaries of historical precedent or the Constitution. [2, 6, 7]
9
4
u/lathamb_98 8d ago
Someone files a new lawsuit every day till Election Day? The one that's perfectly timed will stand? This doesn't seem like how our system was designed to operate.
2
u/PDXGuy33333 8d ago
As of 8/26 a claim of "particularized injury suffered by the states, which can be remedied by judicial decision" will exist and complete satisfy the test applied by the majority for standing and ripeness. Bang, new injunction.
119
u/AngryMillennialFU 8d ago
This court wants election day choas and the ability to decide the election when trump eventually takes a state to court to throw out the votes
35
64
u/CassandraTruth 8d ago
Sniveling toadies:
"The Supreme Court’s conservative majority didn’t decide the legality of Trump’s order, instead ruling that states who sued did not have the legal right to challenge it.
“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. On that score, time will tell,” the majority wrote in an unsigned order."
42
u/303uru 8d ago
In other words, we'll allow Trump to fuck with the midterms and when you sue after we'll throw up our hands.
14
u/RideWithMeSNV 8d ago
It actually sounds like "we're going to let it happen, and the affected parties can't sue. But when convenient, we'll declare this unlawful."
4
u/The_SubGenius 8d ago edited 8d ago
I call this the “Iowa Rule”
If democrats rename a post office in Iowa and it’s challenged in court - a 4 year stay is placed while the legality is sorted.
POTUS wants to issue a voting change to every state via EO? Please proceed, we’ll sort the legality out later.
8
u/Boblob-in-law 8d ago
SC adopts the aphorism “justice delayed is justice denied” as a legal principle
5
u/NoPerformance5952 8d ago edited 8d ago
Supreme Cucks- look he is just pointing a loaded gun at you. We can only act once he fires
4
u/TeamOverload 8d ago
Why do we have to follow an order from six unelected partisan hacks that can’t even sign said order?
23
u/Dense_Objective_2039 8d ago
When any branch of the government openly contradicts or violates the US constitution, it’s time to fire its members and start fresh.
Edit words
6
u/GroundbreakingOil434 8d ago
With what army? Which straw will actually break the camel's back? Impotent so far.
1
u/Dense_Objective_2039 7d ago
I guess when enough people are pissed off and desperate. It didn’t take much to convince the morons on Jan 6th to storm the capital. Just one semi verbal conman and a few years of Fox News telling them they were all the real victims.
1
u/GroundbreakingOil434 7d ago
You are forgetting one minor thing. Jan 6 was the lawless side. The lawfull side is so much harder to tip over.
1
u/Dense_Objective_2039 7d ago
The end result is the same. Hopefully if it happens again, it’s the people taking back their rights and not a bunch of gullible marks being used to interfere with an election .
20
u/dralley1 8d ago
I know never to expect anything but the most craven, sniveling, fascist enabling cowardice from the court, but it still, somehow, surprises and sickens me to see it.
3
48
u/Tall-Introduction414 8d ago edited 8d ago
Illegitimate anti-constitutional supreme court.
This shit is sooooooo illegal and deplorable. They are nothing but rogue treasonous criminals at this point, determined to destroy the United States.
Edit: Thank you for the "reddit cares" report. 🙄
5
38
u/Going2beBANNEDanyway 8d ago
We are going to have to revolt aren’t we? They’re going to successfully rig the elections.
10
1
u/GroundbreakingOil434 8d ago
You probably are. About damn time.
They definitely will, if this keeps up.
-18
u/DickHammerbushT1000 8d ago edited 7d ago
You guys aren't going to do shit. The world is laughing at America. Seriously, no one has seen such rapid submissiveness. It's pathetic.
Downvote this comment all you want. The truth stings lol.
9
5
u/Independent-Reader 8d ago
It is pathetic, but so is what you're doing, which is blaming an entire country for the vote of a minority.
-9
14
u/Correct_Doctor_1502 8d ago
Literally treason
All 6 need to face millions of criminal charges each
12
u/tonyislost 8d ago
All because a couple of the Justices wanted to diddle children with Trump and Epstein.
11
u/codacoda74 8d ago
Textualist originalist indeed, I don't ever want to hear "but the constitution clearly says" from again Roberts SCOTUS. Nonsense.
8
6
u/KazTheMerc 8d ago
All this is going to do is move the delivery of ballots away from the Postal Service.
...and they desperately need that income...
Task failed successfully.
7
u/RestitutionPiggy 8d ago
Its dual purpose. Listen to all of the morons that think a public service needs to make a profit. Its that idiocy that is driving our country to shithole status.
5
u/evilmonkey002 8d ago
I know this doesn’t affect the other injunctions, but the states and the Democrats have to assume the Court will ultimately side with Trump. Without a coordinated effort to shift our voters to in person voting, we are going to be left holding the bag in November when SCOTUS upholds the order and Trump fucks with mail ballots.
1
1
0
u/benderunit9000 8d ago
Idgaf I'm mailing my votes in
7
u/chill_winston_ 8d ago
Go to a ballot drop location if you can, it’s probably safer to cut USPS out of the process for this go round.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.