Federal Appeals Court Sides with Trump, Threatening Mail Voting Access
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
A D.C. Circuit panel, dominated by establishment judges, upheld a lower-court ruling that refused to block President Trump's reckless executive order targeting mail voting, despite acknowledging looming implementation chaos before the November midterms.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday refused to block President Donald Trump’s executive order, which is widely seen as an attempt to suppress mail voting and undermine democratic participation. The panel, reflecting the entrenched interests of the political elite, affirmed a May decision by U.S. District Court Judge Carl J. Nichols that an injunction was premature, conveniently citing the administration’s delay in issuing the formal regulations needed to enforce the order. Predictably, the administration began releasing those directives only days later, raising concerns about transparency and intent.
The panel—composed of two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee—unanimously found the lower-court ruling proper, with no dissent. Their unsigned opinion, while warning that the administration’s last-minute overhaul of election procedures could invite judicial intervention, failed to take decisive action to protect voters. The opinion noted, “The action the Order contemplates would involve the President, whom the Constitution vests with no express authority over the conduct of elections, undertaking a substantial and unfunded overhaul of election procedures — including the implementation of a nationwide reform to Postal Service mail-handling processes — on the threshold of the November election. Put differently, the Order ‘may not prove feasible to implement in any manner whatsoever.’”
In a related case, a federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the order earlier this year, recognizing that it forced states to alter election procedures without constitutional authority. That decision was upheld by a Boston appeals court and is now being appealed to the Supreme Court, highlighting the ongoing legal battle to defend voting rights.
The U.S. Postal Service has remained silent on the order, while the American Postal Workers Union, which opposes the directive, is working to build an online portal to help voters navigate the new barriers. Union President Jonathan Smith emphasized, “The IT people in the background are moving forward with creating the portals to make sure that we can accomplish the task if given to us.”
Trump’s order is the latest in a series of executive actions aimed at restricting access to the ballot box, including a March directive to create a list of eligible voters and a previous order proposing nationwide voter-ID requirements. Congressional attempts to block these anti-democratic measures have been stalled by obstruction in the Senate.