Brown Jackson Declines Trump Admin Request Over Mail-In Ballot Order
President Donald Trump’s ongoing efforts to make elections more secure ahead of the fall midterms hit another snag late Wednesday.
Not only is the GOP-controlled Congress doing little to help the president, but now Joe Biden’s DEI justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has created her own roadblock.
The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow full enforcement of Trump’s executive order imposing additional restrictions on mail-in voting.
In the filing, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that a federal judge’s order blocking portions of the executive order in 23 states and the District of Columbia was “extraordinary” and said it “flouts settled” legal principles governing when federal courts may intervene in disputes.
Sauer also asked the Supreme Court to issue an immediate administrative stay, which would temporarily suspend the lower court’s ruling while the justices consider the administration’s request.
But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson later Monday declined the administration’s request without issuing a formal ruling, instead ordering the plaintiffs to respond to the government’s emergency application within seven days.
“The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to restore key parts of President Trump’s election integrity executive order, including provisions directing USPS to change federal mail-ballot procedures, arguing lower courts blocked the policy before any final agency action,” SCOTUSBlog noted on X.
Trump signed the executive order at the center of the case, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” on March 31.
Among its provisions, the order directs the U.S. Postal Service to develop new rules governing mail-in and absentee ballots and instructs the Department of Homeland Security to compile state lists identifying U.S. citizens who are at least 18 years old.
Under the proposed rules, the USPS would be permitted to deliver mail-in ballots only to voters whose names appear on those state citizenship lists.
A coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia, led by California, challenged the executive order in federal court in Massachusetts.
The states argued that the order conflicts with constitutional provisions granting states the authority to determine voter eligibility and regulate the “Times, Places, and Manner” of conducting congressional elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, agreed with those arguments and, on June 25, issued an order barring the federal government from enforcing the executive order’s mail-in ballot and state citizenship list provisions for the Nov. 3, 2026, elections in the states participating in the lawsuit.
On Saturday, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit turned down the government’s request to intervene.
If the order were “to take effect for the elections taking place” in the fall, the majority wrote, “it would sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters.”
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to intervene, arguing that the lawsuit is premature because the federal agencies responsible for carrying out the executive order have not yet determined how its provisions will be implemented.
In the filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that the courts should not consider the states’ challenge until the agencies have finalized their implementation plans.
Sauer argued that even if the courts ultimately determine the states’ lawsuit is properly before them, Talwani’s order should be stayed because allowing it to remain in effect would cause what he described as “serious irreparable harm.”
“Even if the agencies’ implementation plans end up being entirely lawful,” Sauer wrote.
“There is not enough time to obtain ordinary appellate relief from the injunction in order to carry them out before the November election, especially given that any such plans will need to be implemented well before November given the timing of election procedures concerning voter-roll verification and mail voting,” Sauer added.
Jackson’s order requires states to respond to the government’s request by Aug. 13.
Iran TV Airs Sick Threat Against Barron Trump, Reports of $10M Bounty
Iranian state media aired an insane video about killing Barron Trump, along with reporting a $10 million bounty on his head ... and it's sure to get President Donald Trump's attention.
Play video content
CAUSE FOR CONCERN
Video: Iran TV Broadcasts Disturbing Threat Against Barron Trump, Reports $10M Bounty
The "Where to kill Barron Trump" clip says Barron's movements are being "fully monitored" while he's attending New York University ... and claims Barron's accounts for Xbox and Discord have been hacked.
The video goes into depth about what Barron wears ... and what his bodyguards wear. It also alleges his travel habits.
Per reports, the f-ed-up video is tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ... and it's a big-time escalation in the threats coming out of Iran toward Trump as the war rages on.
The chilling video aired amid Trump ratcheting up pressure on Iran to finally crack ... his latest measure, dubbed "economic D-Day,” is meant to cripple Iran's economy.
The video might just be a BS scary tactic ... but it's still pretty freaking unnerving for the 20-year-old college student.
Chaos around Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s future as ‘six month plan’ revealed
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are just days away from relocating back to Britain with their children.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle may be relocating back to the UK in a matter of days, however, they may not actually be staying here permanently. Just last week, it was reported that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, alongside their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, will be moving back to Britain.
It was reported that the children had already been enrolled on British schools, with the exact name and location of the school not revealed. It was also reported that the family would live in a private, non-royal residence, with the location kept private for security reasons. The motive behind the move was not reported.
While many think this means the Sussex family will be back in the UK - the country they once criticised very publicly - someone close to the couple has revealed that it could actually only be temporary.
The source told The Times: “It’ll be an extended period of time — it could be six months, it could be a year, it could be more — I don’t think even they know yet.
“They might suddenly go: ‘Why don’t we try Canada for a while? Why don’t we try Australia?’ It’s one of the great things about being private individuals [that they can live where they choose].”
The family has spent the last six years living in Montecito, California (Image: Instagram / @meghan)
Harry and Meghan themselves have not released a statement on their upcoming move back to Harry’s home country.
Rumours have been swirling about why they are relocating, with some people believing it is due to Harry’s desire to be close to King Charles.
Other reports suggest that Meghan has been offered an acting role based in Britain, although there is no official confirmation.
The family are reportedly set to fly over from California before the end of August, allowing the children to settle before they start at their new school. It has been reported that the family will keep their Montecito home in America, and their Portugal holiday home. It has also been reported that the family's chickens will stay at the Montecito home, while the family's two dogs are expected to fly over to the UK with them.
McEnany: Dems Shift Further Left a ‘Gift’ To GOP Ahead of Midterms Now
Fox News co-host Kayleigh McEnany argued this week that Democrats are giving a “gift” to President Donald Trump and Republicans going into the 2026 midterms.
During a segment on Outnumbered, McEnany and the panel discussed November’s midterm elections and how the rise of socialism will help Republicans.
“You have these voices in the Republican Party that are constructive. But the problem is they’re rubbing up against the Democrat voices, many of which you just read. I mean, that quote, if they go low, I’m going to the gutter, I guess gone are the days of Michelle Obama where they go high,” McEnany said.
“I’m not sure if those days were ever truly here, but at least they were in word rather than action. But I’m struck by what some of these Democrats have told The Hill. There is a Democratic senator. People are going to get hammered if we make a deal with Republicans,” McEnany said.
She was referring to Democrats keeping the federal government shut down for over a month to appease the far-left wing of their party.
“So they were afraid of getting hammered by their base. They’re admitting that. Another person familiar with Democrat in the Senate, their caucus thinking said we would have enough votes if people were not terrified of being sent to the guillotine,” McEnany said.
“These people are so petrified of the same progressive left-wing flank that is animating the candidacy of Zohran Mamdani that they have to shut down the government and can’t even get military families paid,” she argued.
“It is a really striking place for the party. This is something to watch because it could come back and bite Democrats big time going into next year’s midterm elections,” McEnany described.
WATCH:
Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters says Republicans may outspend Democrats this election cycle, a dramatic reversal from past campaigns where Democrats often held the fundraising advantage.
Speaking on Breitbart, Gruters argued Republicans are entering the midterm cycle with significantly stronger financial positioning and unprecedented coordination across the conservative movement.
Host Mike Slater asked Gruters to put the reported $70 million Democrats spent in Virginia’s recent redistricting battle into perspective.
“How much money is that for the parties?” Slater asked.
“The DNC has minus 4 million [dollars], and it wasn’t the DNC that plowed $70 million: It was the collective,” Gruters said.
“So, if you look at the collective on the right, we may have $800 million,” he continued.
“The collective on the left may have $350 million, and when you have the court, there’s gonna be a court case that is ruled on in the next week or two, coordinated campaign limits, which will magnify that, which will allow full coordination and allow the parties to spend at the candidate rate, which is massive for us,” he said.
“When you have that financial advantage, people, you know, people don’t know that the Democrats routinely spend more than us on election cycles, because they have more massive donors and that will write massive checks,” he said.
He said the RNC currently has “about $125 million” on hand compared to what he described as negative cash reserves at the DNC.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) appeared on Fox & Friends, where he took the opportunity to discuss significant issues affecting Americans as the country approaches the midterm elections.
“Obviously we’ve done a lot of work: The Big Beautiful Bill, the working families tax cut — all of the legislation has been geared towards the cost of living, affordability, bringing the cost of living down,” he said.
“We put in all those conditions in the economy to let it take off like a rocket, and we were doing that at the beginning of the first quarter, and then the Iran skirmish began,” said the Speaker.
“So, when this settles down, gas prices come back down to earth, that means your grocery prices come down again because of transport costs and all the rest,” he said.
“It’s going to be a big factor. The kitchen table issues are gonna decide the midterms.”
“We’re super excited about the midterms. I’m absolutely convinced that we’re gonna grow the majority and get this done and make history,” he added.
