Supreme Court Sides With Trump in Major Voting Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has lifted a lower court block on President Trump’s Executive order adding new requirements for mail-in voting, ruling that far-Left led states sued before the Postal Service had finalized its regulations.

The decision allows the Administration’s policy to move forward for now as challenges continue in the lower courts.

As reported by Fox News:

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a victory on Monday, allowing it to enforce President Donald Trump’s "election integrity" executive order restricting mail-in voting ahead of the November midterms.

The high court lifted an injunction that had blocked the order in 23 states that challenged it after the administration appealed in July.

The U.S. Postal Service and Justice Department said they would immediately implement the revised mail-ballot restrictions after the ruling.

Most immediately, the ruling clears the path for the U.S. Postal Service to check its distribution of mail-in ballots against a list of citizens maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. But it’s also a significant political victory for the Trump administration as it has advocated against the widespread use of mail-in-voting, citing what it believes is a heightened vulnerability to tampering and voter fraud.

Most recently, Trump slammed what he called a suspiciously high volume of mail-in-ballots cast for Cynthia Raman in the 2026 LA mayoral race primaries.

"You know, they don’t have voting booths; everything’s by mail. I don’t think a Republican can win in California unless you pass the Save America Act," Trump told Fox News, referring to GOP legislation to narrow the scope of mail-in voting and voter-ID requirements.

"They’re going to have to get rid of mail-in voting."

Like many onlooking conservatives, Trump pointed out that, after election night, the vast majority of Democratic votes had been for Nithya Raman, creating a delayed outpouring of support.

This is a significant win for President Trump.

By lifting the lower-court injunction blocking President Trump’s Executive order, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” imposing new requirements on mail-in voting, the Supreme Court’s decision allows the Administration’s policy to move forward while the legal challenge continues in the lower court.

The case involves an Executive order aimed at strengthening election integrity, including provisions requiring states to provide updated voter information so that mail-in ballots can be matched with eligible voters. The order also includes measures such as unique barcode identifiers intended to help verify that ballots are being sent to the right people and properly processed.

Twenty-three states sued the Trump Administration, arguing that the Executive order improperly interferes with their constitutional authority to administer elections. A federal district court agreed and issued an injunction blocking the order.

The Trump Administration then appealed and asked for a stay of that injunction and requested that the Executive order be allowed to move forward. Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed, writing:

The President recently issued an Executive Order regarding election integrity. A group of States sued the Government in the District of Massachusetts, contending that the Order unconstitutionally infringes on their authority to administer elections. The District Court agreed and enjoined the Government from implementing the Order. In doing so, the District Court rejected the Government’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction over the States’ claims because the States lack standing to bring them. The Government has asked us to stay the injunction, arguing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its jurisdictional argument, that the injunction is causing it irreparable harm, and that the equities do not favor leaving the injunction in place while the Government's appeal is pending. We agree and grant the stay.

Now the Supreme Court issued this as a per curiam order, which means it is not signed by a specific Justice, but there were three dissents. And it’s clear those dissenters wanted to leave the injunction in place.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included more analysis of this Supreme Court decision. We also spoke with ACLJ Senior Counsel and head of ACLJ Jerusalem, Jeff Ballabon regarding controversial commentator and activist Hasan Piker’s recent comments against Jewish Americans. 

Watch the full broadcast below: