Supreme’s Send Trump Mail in Ballot Limits case back to the Judge who said No

Some media headlines scream Trump’s executive order to the Post Office was given a go ahead

Not true…..

The court voted it’s regular 6-3 numbers that the Blue states case against a President withholding mail in ballots was filed too early…..There was NO harm because the Post Office had NOT instituted Trump’s order…

The case is sent BACK to the Federal judge who ruled against the Trump order….

(Time IS actually running out against Trump’s ability to actually have his order implemented )

We’ll see how this proceeds….

The Supreme Court on Monday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, that imposes restrictions on mail-in voting. The court paused an injunction by a federal judge in Boston that had barred the federal government from applying provisions of that executive order in the November elections to 23 states (along with the District of Columbia) challenging their legality.

A separate ruling by the same judge, in a case filed by a different set of plaintiffs, temporarily prohibits the U.S. Postal Service from implementing one provision of the executive order anywhere in the United States. That ruling remains in effect, at least for now.

In its 10-page, unsigned opinion, the majority said that it was too soon for courts to consider the states’ challenge because the order has not yet been carried out – which means that the states have not suffered the kind of injury that allows their lawsuit to move forward.

The court’s three Democratic appointees dissented. In a 23-page opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the majority of “[t]aking its eye off the ball” and thus “miss[ing] the Government’s actual objective: to secure our imprimatur for its effort to foment chaos ahead of the November elections.”

President Donald Trump signed the executive order at the center of the dispute in March. As it came to the court in late July, the focus of the case was on three different provisions of the order. The first instructs the Department of Homeland Security to create lists of the adult U.S. citizens in each state and to send those lists to states at least 60 days before a federal election. The second provision commands the U.S. attorney general to “prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of State and local officials … who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election.” And the third provision requires states to give the U.S. Postal Service a list of voters to whom the states intend to send mail ballots, and it prohibits the USPS from mailing ballots to voters who are not on the lists of “enrolled” voters that the USPS will create.

A group of 23 states, led by California, and the District of Columbia challenged the government’s implementation of the order in a federal court in Massachusetts. They argued that the executive order conflicts with provisions in the Constitution that give states the power to determine voter eligibility and to set the “Times, Places, and Manner” of holding congressional elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that she could not review the challengers’ claims as they applied to federal elections scheduled after Nov. 3, 2026, because those claims were not yet “ripe” – that is, ready for review. However, she said, she could review the challengers’ claims with regard to the upcoming midterm elections because the order “created a ‘direct and immediate dilemma’” for them, and she prohibited the federal government from implementing the challenged restrictions on or before Nov. 3, 2026, in the District of Columbia and the 23 states.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to pause Talwani’s order while the litigation continued. It stressed that neither the federal government nor 12 states, led by Alabama, that had joined the case on the Trump administration’s side had argued that the executive order was legal. That court also rejected the contention that the challengers did not have a right to sue or that the case was not yet ripe. The consequences of the executive order, the court of appeals countered, give states “no practical choice but to respond to the EO now.”….

…

…..the majority indicated, Talwani’s “conclusion that this internal directive inflicts” the kind of injury that would allow the states to sue “necessarily rests on an ‘attenuated chain of inferences.’” “If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the States,” the majority noted, “they may challenge that rule.”….

More….

Note….

I’m no lawyer but this seems to be a legal dancing…..

The Supreme’s did NOT rule on if Trump’s order to the post office was legal against Blue state who argue that the Federal Government C’Cannot’ interfere in states voting procedure’s….

The court blinked in ruling that Post office did NOT actually follow Trump’s order, which would only happen AFTER mail voting begin’s in less than a month from now…

In plain terms?

Trump wants the US Postal Service to NULLIFY votes cast by mail in the states, (could be MILLIONS) which to ME?

IS the Federal Government intreferrinmg in state elections , something the US Constitution prohibits….