Supreme Court gives Trump massive victory on restricting mail-in voting

The U.S. Supreme Court sided Monday with President Donald Trump against a collection of Democrat-controlled states who sued to oppose his executive order restricting mail-in ballots.
The highest court of the land found in a partisan 5-3 ruling that the states did not have standing to sue against the president's order and overturned a lower court order to block the restrictions in 23 states.
'Only Democrat politicians and operatives would be upset about lawful efforts to secure American elections.'
"This internal directive does not regulate the States' voter registration processes," read the order from the Supreme Court. "Nor does it impinge on the States' authority 'to create and enforce a legal code' for elections."
However, the majority ruling warned that not all measures taken by the executive to implement the order will be necessarily lawful.
"On that score, time will tell," the majority said.
The court's three liberal justices dissented from the ruling.
The executive order from March directed the Department of Homeland Security to tabulate a list of citizens eligible to vote. It then called on the U.S. Postal Service to only accept ballots from people on the list.
U.S. attorneys general from several Democrat states sued to stop the order on the basis that it would disenfranchise some voters who could vote lawfully.
"Only Democrat politicians and operatives would be upset about lawful efforts to secure American elections and ensure only eligible American citizens are casting ballots," read a statement from White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson in April.
In her dissent Monday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the president of seeking to "foment chaos ahead of the November elections."
Justice Sonya Sotomayor said the ruling only "postpones" the adjudication of the president's order.
"Today's decision does not address whether the President's attempts to interfere with States' administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful," wrote Sotomayor in a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan.
RELATED: Appeals court unanimous in pivotal ruling on undated or misdated mail-in ballots

"Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President's directives," they added.
New York Attorney General Letitia James agreed with Sotomayor in her own statement on the ruling.
"This decision is a painful setback, but it will not be the final word," she wrote. "The right to vote is sacred, and no administration should be allowed to put that right in jeopardy by making it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballots."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

---

The U.S. Supreme Court sided Monday with President Donald Trump against a collection of Democrat-controlled states who sued to oppose his executive order restricting mail-in ballots.
The highest court of the land found in a partisan 5-3 ruling that the states did not have standing to sue against the president's order and overturned a lower court order to block the restrictions in 23 states.
'Only Democrat politicians and operatives would be upset about lawful efforts to secure American elections.'
"This internal directive does not regulate the States' voter registration processes," read the order from the Supreme Court. "Nor does it impinge on the States' authority 'to create and enforce a legal code' for elections."
However, the majority ruling warned that not all measures taken by the executive to implement the order will be necessarily lawful.
"On that score, time will tell," the majority said.
The court's three liberal justices dissented from the ruling.
The executive order from March directed the Department of Homeland Security to tabulate a list of citizens eligible to vote. It then called on the U.S. Postal Service to only accept ballots from people on the list.
U.S. attorneys general from several Democrat states sued to stop the order on the basis that it would disenfranchise some voters who could vote lawfully.
"Only Democrat politicians and operatives would be upset about lawful efforts to secure American elections and ensure only eligible American citizens are casting ballots," read a statement from White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson in April.
In her dissent Monday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the president of seeking to "foment chaos ahead of the November elections."
Justice Sonya Sotomayor said the ruling only "postpones" the adjudication of the president's order.
"Today's decision does not address whether the President's attempts to interfere with States' administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful," wrote Sotomayor in a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan.
RELATED: Appeals court unanimous in pivotal ruling on undated or misdated mail-in ballots

"Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President's directives," they added.
New York Attorney General Letitia James agreed with Sotomayor in her own statement on the ruling.
"This decision is a painful setback, but it will not be the final word," she wrote. "The right to vote is sacred, and no administration should be allowed to put that right in jeopardy by making it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballots."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!