US Supreme Court Upholds Limits on Trump Executive Order Mail-In Voting

• A group of 23 states and the District of Columbia challenged an executive order on mail-in voting, arguing it is unconstitutional.
• The Supreme Court was asked to uphold a lower court's order blocking provisions of the executive order.
• The executive order would have given the U.S. Postal Service new powers and responsibilities in relation to voter verification and ballot transmission.

Granting a request to pause the lower court’s order “would allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program that would, among other things, give the U.S. Postal Service far-reaching new powers and responsibilities.”

A group of 23 states and the District of Columbia have asked the Supreme Court to uphold a lower court's order blocking provisions of an executive order on mail-in voting. The challengers, represented by lawyers, argued in a 45-page filing that granting a request to pause the lower court's order would allow the federal government to implement a voter-verification and ballot-interception program without legal justification. This program would give the U.S. Postal Service new powers and responsibilities, which the challengers claim is unprecedented and indefensible.

The executive order in question was issued by former President Donald Trump on March 31, 2020. The provisions at issue require several government agencies to take action, including creating lists of eligible voters and investigating state officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible individuals.

The executive order on mail-in voting was issued by former President Trump in an effort to restrict the use of mail ballots. However, several states challenged this order, arguing that it was unconstitutional and would lead to voter suppression. The Supreme Court was asked to consider this matter, which had significant implications for state election procedures and USPS responsibilities at the time.

The lower court's order blocking the executive order's provisions was issued in response to a lawsuit filed by the 23 states and the District of Columbia. The challengers argued that the provisions were unconstitutional and would lead to voter suppression, while the federal government claimed that they were necessary to prevent election fraud.

The Supreme Court's consideration of this matter had far-reaching implications for state election procedures and USPS responsibilities at the time. If the court had upheld the lower court's order, it could have limited the federal government's ability to restrict mail-in voting. However, if the court had granted a request to pause the lower court's order, it could have allowed the federal government to implement a voter-verification and ballot-interception program without legal justification.

Lawyers should have been aware of the potential compliance exposures related to voter eligibility and ballot transmission, as the Supreme Court's decision would have impacted state election procedures and USPS responsibilities. The court's ruling would also have had implications for the US Postal Service's powers and responsibilities in relation to mail-in voting.

Lawyers should watch for potential compliance exposures related to voter eligibility and ballot transmission, as the Supreme Court's decision may impact state election procedures and USPS responsibilities.

Source: Original reporting via States challenging executive order on mail-in voting ask justices to leave in place limits on its implementation