The Supreme Court today stayed a lower-court ruling that halted implementation of President Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting.
The ruling means that the Administration can move to implement the EO. This could have a significant impact on mail-in voting in the upcoming mid-term elections.
But the ruling was limited to jurisdictional issues and the stay factors; it did not address the EO’s lawfulness. The ruling thus allows state-plaintiffs to sue again if and when the EO harms them. But that potentially raises a different jurisdictional problem: the Court has ruled that courts should not intervene in a way that alters election rules too close to an election, lest they create confusion. Given the timing, this principle–the Purcell principle–could limit the ability of states to sue the closer we come to the election, even if they suffer harm.
(In a separate case brought by the League of Women Voters, the court earlier this month entered a preliminary halting USPS from initiating rule-making under the EO for the upcoming mid-terms. The Administration filed a motion to reconsider in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling today. The court hasn’t yet ruled.)
President Trump’s EO comes in three parts. First, it requires the Department of Homeland Security to create a list of citizens over the age of 18 in each state and to send that list to the states. Next, it requires the Attorney General to prioritize prosecution of those who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters. Finally, it requires the Postal Service to initiate rule-making that would require outbound ballot envelopes to contain a unique barcode and not to deliver the ballots of anyone not enrolled by a state with USPS.
A group of states and D.C. sued, and a district court entered final judgment prohibiting the Administration from implementing those portions of the EO.
The Supreme Court today granted a stay. On the likelihood of success on the merits, the Court ruled that the states lacked standing, because they haven’t yet demonstrated a concrete and particularized, actual or imminent harm. It also held for similar reasons that the case wasn’t ripe for judicial review. It held that other stay factors also favored the government.
Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Jackson wrote her own dissent.
It’s not clear what happens next. The Administration may not have time to implement and enforce the EO before the mid-terms. If it does, however, it’s not entirely clear what would happen, that is, how the Administration would actually implement it, including how many mistakes DHS’s list may contain. And if the states can demonstrate harm, it’s not clear whether they could sue to block Administration actions, given the Purcell principle.
On the merits, the Constitution gives the states in the first instance–not the federal government, and certainly not the President alone–the authority to run and regulate federal elections. According to the lower court (and the law), the President has no legal authority to issue much of the EO. Still, the Court didn’t seem too concerned about overreach, at least not yet, because, according to the Court, the EO limited DHS, the Attorney General, and USPS to act only “[t]o the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law.”
Leave a Reply