US Supreme Court Sides With Trump, Allows Implementation of Executive Order Restricting Mail-In Voting

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the enforcement of U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order placing certain restrictions on mail-in voting on the 24th local time.

Given that Democratic supporters generally make heavier use of mail-in voting, the decision is seen as a ruling in favor of President Trump and the Republican Party.

However, U.S. media outlets reported that legal hurdles have not been completely cleared, leaving it still uncertain whether the executive order can be executed before the November midterm elections.

According to media outlets including the Associated Press, the Supreme Court granted an emergency application allowing the executive order regarding mail-in voting reforms, which President Trump signed on March 31, to be implemented in this year's midterm elections.

Six conservative justices voted in favor, while three progressive justices dissented.

The Supreme Court's decision overturned lower court rulings.

In June, a federal district court in Massachusetts issued a stay on the order's enforcement, and on July 25, a federal appeals court also maintained that measure.

The Supreme Court determined that the states that filed the lawsuit lacked the standing to sue because the executive order is an "internal guideline" that causes no harm to the states.

Instead, the Supreme Court concluded that barring the implementation of the executive order "could cause irreparable harm" to the Trump administration.

However, the Supreme Court stated that "disposition of this emergency application does not mean that every action taken by the government to implement this order is necessarily legal," adding that the legality "will be known in time."

This means the court did not rule on the legality of the executive order itself.

Commenting on this, the Associated Press noted, "While the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, it remains unclear to what extent this measure can be implemented before the rapidly approaching midterms."

In particular, Reuters evaluated that the fate of the executive order remains uncertain because the Supreme Court took no action regarding a separate lower court order that barred the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from failing to implement President Trump's mail-in voting executive order.

Another variable is that the state of California has expressed its intention to continue lawsuits to block the executive order despite the Supreme Court's decision.

Therefore, the Supreme Court's ruling leaves room for additional legal challenges that could further delay the executive order, and similar lawsuits have already been filed, the Associated Press pointed out.

With some states scheduled to begin mailing out ballots in just a few weeks, time appears too tight to bring about major changes in the upcoming midterms.

President Trump has blamed rigged elections for his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, claiming that mail-in voting is at the core of fraud.

Through this executive order, President Trump ordered mail-in voting reforms, such as having the federal government compile voter lists by state and send them to each state, and allowing the USPS to send ballots only to voters on these lists.

In response, 23 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia government filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the order violated the U.S. Constitution, which grants the authority to set election regulations to individual states and the federal Congress.

Apart from the legal battle surrounding the contentious executive order, President Trump is strongly pushing the so-called "Voter ID Act"—which mandates presenting voter identification and proof of citizenship during voting, and bans mail-in voting except for military service, illness, disability, or travel—as a top legislative priority.

The U.S. House of Representatives processed a budget package last month containing federal government grants to implement this law, but it has hit a roadblock in the Senate.

(Photo: AP, Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.