The Supreme Court’s grant of a stay in one of the mail-in ballot cases is deeply wrong, but it’s also not the main event over whether Trump’s patently unlawful executive order can take effect.
Mr. Vladeck probably assumes that everyone who reads his newsletter is aware of that. [I used to know a lot about nursing & physiology: now I am working on becoming a Constitutional scholar ;-) ]
It seems that the Trump administration's strategy is to make state cooperation with the Post Office's plan voluntary, so they can say that they're not infringing on state sovereignty. Then, when states that declined to use the system inadvertently send mail-in ballots to some non-citizen voters (no matter how few), the Justice Department can prosecute the relevant state officials and chuck them in prison.
The whole thing is designed to route around that and assert that the Post Office is independently able to refuse delivery. Which… I think at least Thomas and Alito would rule in favor of.
Remember, the Purcell principle is only in place when democrats are in charge like when Alabama had to draw another Dem seat and the court said was too late in like February 2022.
... and Purcell only applies to the courts. So, a lawless Administration can do whatever it wants to, right up to Election Day. The effect is the same, whoever makes the rules.
The Constitution (Art. 1 Sect. 4): "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.".
Lawless or not, the Executive branch has no constitutional authority to determine if/how mail-in ballots may or may not be used.
This is a very good question that each State will have to answer. In the meantime, the States should be preparing to assure voters can vote even if the USPS or Trump interfere with mail-in-voting. Seems to me, this is a critical need.
Seriously. When Roberts went on his sermon about judges being apolitical, I almost lost my lunch. There has been no more politicized court than his in living memory.
I agree. The current problem was manufactured primarily by the current SCOTUS majority. Trump's current violations of our Constitution follow the path the SCOTUS majority previously blazed for him with their lies in Trump v. Anderson.
SCOTUS justices outright lied (twice) when they misrepresented that “federal officers” de facto and de jure somehow “owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people” and “powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically ‘delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.’ ”
Now, however, to purport to prove that states lack standing, the SCOTUS majority acknowledged that they knew all along about "States’ authority to 'create and enforce a legal code’ for elections.” How was that power more "specifically delegated" to states in our Constitution than the power to enforce Section 3 of Amendment XIV? Regarding Trump v. Anderson, even the SCOTUS majority repeatedly emphasized that Amendment XIV was aimed directly at governing state powers. Amendment XIV Section 3 (and other provisions of our Constitution) merely state standards that our public servants at the state level, as well as at the federal level, can and must apply to disqualify certain potential candidates. Article VI also emphasized that all state (and federal) legislators and executive and judicial officers must take all action that is necessary and proper "to support this Constitution."
SCOTUS justices further highlighted their deceit in Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. United States with the following in yesterday's opinion: "Article III prohibits federal courts from stacking hypothetical on hypothetical to speculate that harm will eventually materialize," so a plaintiff “cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” But everything the majority did in Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. United States (and everything they deceitfully pretended to have the power to allow Trump to do) was based on the foregoing.
My guess is there are so many involved with their ass hanging out if the midterms don't go in favor of the gop, hell will be knocking at their doors. Looking directly at scotus.
Regardless, the PO is ready to act on this. The SCOTUS could refuse to rule on the PO issue until AFTER the election, AFTER the damage is already done. There is NO GOOD THAT WILL COME OF THIS!
We are soon to watch our entire economy get flushed as well. Just look at the folks suffering in Gary Indiana. Soon this will be everyone. The complete destruction of the USA is by design, and SCOTUS is in on it.
I’m sorry. Today is a tough day, but nothing will keep me from voting! I plan to vote early, and I advise everyone else to do the same if they are able. And if you have no choice but to vote by mail, don’t delay, and keep copies of all of your documentation.
USPS- just sent cert reg return receipt, got nothing back. Talked to PO handling addressed mailed to and advised since Covid they just get too much and don't bother. No delivery and not the first time. Can't wait to see how they dump mail-in ballots. The fix has been in at SCOTUS for a long time. Time to bulldoze the bldg and take away security and let them eat their cooking as rest of Americans have to. It is just the pretense of the rule of law at this point.
Glad you did, but told by supervisor at PO station near address to be delivered, that they just don't bother. Moreover, from a ballot standpoint, timing matters. USPS regularly loses mail where I am.
Doesn't the final USPS rule say (in addition to alot of technical issues about the envelopes like bar codes) that each state's chief election official provides the official mail-in/absentee voter list and the USPS then will use this list to verify the mailings themselves? Aside from terrible timing, potential invasion of privacy, and infringement on states' rights, what is the risk the USPS actually will delay or block valid voters' ballots?
The risk is at 100%. The whole purpose of it is to grant them cover to do exactly that, spoiling the election even if the courts intervene. Everything in the second term is about attempting faits accompli.
THEN we can just move on to what America is all about now and fulfilling the national interest, which is clearing a path for the investor class to make as much money and consolidate as much power as possible. It will trickle down to the masses.-- The "conservative" think tanks underpinning the GOP strategy
As the kids would say WTF just happened? Appreciate "conservative" in quotes. Today it can be replaced with tyrannical.
Nosing is "conservative". No such party exists after allowing a Wanna be King Dictator project 2025 written Executive Orders with Tech Broligarch's endorcement of Crypto as preferred Global currency.
Each non decision, no instruction and unconstitutional weigh of the Robert's court has one goal in mind, Presidential.
Even the USPS timing of Friday Evening is upsetting along with Bar Code talk outside of envelopes.
CHip, Chip away when the Constitution clearly wanted the President NEVER to have a say in State's Elections.
It's confusing, but Sec 3 (b)(ii-iv) of the E.O. (linked below) says that "the USPS shall provide each State with a list of individuals (Mail-In and Absentee Participation List) who are enrolled with the USPS" so that states can add a unique bar code (or other identifier) on an individual's mail-in or absentee ballot envelope, and "the USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled" as just described.
So it seems that if a state chooses not to comply with the program, that state's mail-in voters cannot use the USPS to mail in their ballots. I'm not sure that's correct, and the complexity is probably intentional, to add to the overall confusion.
Re: Seventh - If the SC uses "Purcell" to effectively say 'we can't interfere with an 11th hour election change because it's the 11th hour' it would truly be a lawless court's chef's kiss.
Mr. Vladeck probably assumes that everyone who reads his newsletter is aware of that. [I used to know a lot about nursing & physiology: now I am working on becoming a Constitutional scholar ;-) ]
Question: Is the President above the law ?
It seems that the Trump administration's strategy is to make state cooperation with the Post Office's plan voluntary, so they can say that they're not infringing on state sovereignty. Then, when states that declined to use the system inadvertently send mail-in ballots to some non-citizen voters (no matter how few), the Justice Department can prosecute the relevant state officials and chuck them in prison.
The whole thing is designed to route around that and assert that the Post Office is independently able to refuse delivery. Which… I think at least Thomas and Alito would rule in favor of.
Remember, the Purcell principle is only in place when democrats are in charge like when Alabama had to draw another Dem seat and the court said was too late in like February 2022.
... and Purcell only applies to the courts. So, a lawless Administration can do whatever it wants to, right up to Election Day. The effect is the same, whoever makes the rules.
The Constitution (Art. 1 Sect. 4): "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.".
Lawless or not, the Executive branch has no constitutional authority to determine if/how mail-in ballots may or may not be used.
And? Since when has something as minor as the Constitution mattered to this administration?
The same can be said about the conservative majority of the current Court, unfortunately.
Exactly - as the old coin flip saying goes, "heads I win; tails you lose."
Also if you pass laws in Congress Clarence Thomas reserves the right to find some bullshit footnote to shoehorn a denial of this law.
Actually, It's heads I win; tails, you cheated.
Thank you for this extremely important clarification. My question is should you change from mail in voting as an option to avoid adding to this plot ?
This is a very good question that each State will have to answer. In the meantime, the States should be preparing to assure voters can vote even if the USPS or Trump interfere with mail-in-voting. Seems to me, this is a critical need.
Those of us in Oregon don't have any such option...
thanks for the quick update/summary
How often have these justices voted to uphold voting rights? It seems they're doing all they can to favor team GOP.
I think it’s pretty obvious what they are doing-they are trumps personal law firm -
There is no Team GOP, only the tRUmpistas, as bad a bunch of traitors on American soil since Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, et al!
Remember Bush v. Gore? Shelby County v. Holder? The Court has been doing this well before Trump.
Seriously. When Roberts went on his sermon about judges being apolitical, I almost lost my lunch. There has been no more politicized court than his in living memory.
Agree. We,would be better off without the court
I agree. The current problem was manufactured primarily by the current SCOTUS majority. Trump's current violations of our Constitution follow the path the SCOTUS majority previously blazed for him with their lies in Trump v. Anderson.
SCOTUS justices outright lied (twice) when they misrepresented that “federal officers” de facto and de jure somehow “owe their existence and functions to the united voice of the whole, not of a portion, of the people” and “powers over their election and qualifications must be specifically ‘delegated to, rather than reserved by, the States.’ ”
Now, however, to purport to prove that states lack standing, the SCOTUS majority acknowledged that they knew all along about "States’ authority to 'create and enforce a legal code’ for elections.” How was that power more "specifically delegated" to states in our Constitution than the power to enforce Section 3 of Amendment XIV? Regarding Trump v. Anderson, even the SCOTUS majority repeatedly emphasized that Amendment XIV was aimed directly at governing state powers. Amendment XIV Section 3 (and other provisions of our Constitution) merely state standards that our public servants at the state level, as well as at the federal level, can and must apply to disqualify certain potential candidates. Article VI also emphasized that all state (and federal) legislators and executive and judicial officers must take all action that is necessary and proper "to support this Constitution."
SCOTUS justices further highlighted their deceit in Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. United States with the following in yesterday's opinion: "Article III prohibits federal courts from stacking hypothetical on hypothetical to speculate that harm will eventually materialize," so a plaintiff “cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” But everything the majority did in Trump v. Anderson and Trump v. United States (and everything they deceitfully pretended to have the power to allow Trump to do) was based on the foregoing.
Thank you for mentioning 14th Amendment, Sec 3.
Thanks for the well done update!
My guess is there are so many involved with their ass hanging out if the midterms don't go in favor of the gop, hell will be knocking at their doors. Looking directly at scotus.
Regardless, the PO is ready to act on this. The SCOTUS could refuse to rule on the PO issue until AFTER the election, AFTER the damage is already done. There is NO GOOD THAT WILL COME OF THIS!
We'll provide the requested voters list alright, but AFTER the election is certified!
Thank you!!
I remember a time when it would have surprised me. But it’s growing dimmer, along with the light of our Democratic republic.
Sorry, but I’m totally freaking out. I don’t see how we will have a fair election.
Keep passing it on. All eyes on. Every single eligible voter must vote. Stay together in groups, it is safer that http://way.help
We are soon to watch our entire economy get flushed as well. Just look at the folks suffering in Gary Indiana. Soon this will be everyone. The complete destruction of the USA is by design, and SCOTUS is in on it.
Well, that’s depressing. My only reply is vote, vote, vote.
I’m sorry. Today is a tough day, but nothing will keep me from voting! I plan to vote early, and I advise everyone else to do the same if they are able. And if you have no choice but to vote by mail, don’t delay, and keep copies of all of your documentation.
It’s written in Project 25. Let’s jail Hought
Thank you. Still a bit nauseating, but thank you.
USPS- just sent cert reg return receipt, got nothing back. Talked to PO handling addressed mailed to and advised since Covid they just get too much and don't bother. No delivery and not the first time. Can't wait to see how they dump mail-in ballots. The fix has been in at SCOTUS for a long time. Time to bulldoze the bldg and take away security and let them eat their cooking as rest of Americans have to. It is just the pretense of the rule of law at this point.
Got my return reciept, but it took a while.
Glad you did, but told by supervisor at PO station near address to be delivered, that they just don't bother. Moreover, from a ballot standpoint, timing matters. USPS regularly loses mail where I am.
Really appreciate your detailed explanation/analysis! I always count on your Substack to help me understand what’s going on with this Court!
Doesn't the final USPS rule say (in addition to alot of technical issues about the envelopes like bar codes) that each state's chief election official provides the official mail-in/absentee voter list and the USPS then will use this list to verify the mailings themselves? Aside from terrible timing, potential invasion of privacy, and infringement on states' rights, what is the risk the USPS actually will delay or block valid voters' ballots?
The risk is at 100%. The whole purpose of it is to grant them cover to do exactly that, spoiling the election even if the courts intervene. Everything in the second term is about attempting faits accompli.
THEN we can just move on to what America is all about now and fulfilling the national interest, which is clearing a path for the investor class to make as much money and consolidate as much power as possible. It will trickle down to the masses.-- The "conservative" think tanks underpinning the GOP strategy
As the kids would say WTF just happened? Appreciate "conservative" in quotes. Today it can be replaced with tyrannical.
Nosing is "conservative". No such party exists after allowing a Wanna be King Dictator project 2025 written Executive Orders with Tech Broligarch's endorcement of Crypto as preferred Global currency.
Each non decision, no instruction and unconstitutional weigh of the Robert's court has one goal in mind, Presidential.
Even the USPS timing of Friday Evening is upsetting along with Bar Code talk outside of envelopes.
CHip, Chip away when the Constitution clearly wanted the President NEVER to have a say in State's Elections.
EXPAND THE COIRT.
Theoretically, could voters get around this by using FedEx or UPS?
It's confusing, but Sec 3 (b)(ii-iv) of the E.O. (linked below) says that "the USPS shall provide each State with a list of individuals (Mail-In and Absentee Participation List) who are enrolled with the USPS" so that states can add a unique bar code (or other identifier) on an individual's mail-in or absentee ballot envelope, and "the USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled" as just described.
So it seems that if a state chooses not to comply with the program, that state's mail-in voters cannot use the USPS to mail in their ballots. I'm not sure that's correct, and the complexity is probably intentional, to add to the overall confusion.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/03/2026-06601/ensuring-citizenship-verification-and-integrity-in-federal-elections
Thank you!
Re: Seventh - If the SC uses "Purcell" to effectively say 'we can't interfere with an 11th hour election change because it's the 11th hour' it would truly be a lawless court's chef's kiss.
“And the fact that we let this get to the eleventh hour isn’t relevant!”