The US Supreme Court refused to give President Donald Trump the green light to proceed with his plan to restrict mail-in voting before the midterm elections scheduled for November, in a new setback for his administration.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in an opinion supporting the majority decision, said that the disagreement is not necessarily related to the legitimacy of the plan in the long term, but rather to the short time remaining before the elections, as making broad changes to the voting mechanisms at this stage may cause major disruption to the electoral process.
Trump took fraud as an excuse
In March, Trump signed an executive order aimed at tightening the conditions for voting by mail, considering this mechanism vulnerable to fraud, which led to a series of judicial appeals. Democratic-led states filed lawsuits against the US administration, asserting that the Constitution grants the states, not the federal government, broad authority in managing elections.
The plan stipulated the preparation of unified lists of eligible voters, obliging states to follow specific requirements for envelopes and electoral data, and delivering ballots only to the people included in those lists. The US Postal Service could also refuse to process ballots issued by states that do not comply with these requirements.
Election officials stressed that there is no longer practical scope for comprehensive change before the elections, especially after states such as Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin have already begun sending mail-in ballots to voters. Officials in several states also warned that the legal ambiguity surrounding the plan caused a state of administrative confusion months before the polls.
Trump is one of the most prominent critics of mail-in voting, despite his repeated use of this method, including during the Republican Party primaries in Florida. Over the years, he has also continued to link mail-in voting with his repeated claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him in favor of Democrat Joe Biden.
Courts curb Trump's policies
The Supreme Court's decision represents the latest episode in a series of judicial confrontations between the Trump administration and US judicial authorities. During recent months, a number of executive decisions have been challenged before the federal courts, which in some cases found that the administration exceeded the limits of its powers or did not observe the required legal procedures.
The controversy over mail-in voting reflects the deep political division in the United States over the administration of elections and the powers of the federal government compared to those of the states. It also highlights the crucial role that courts play in adjudicating disputes related to the democratic process.
Eliminate restrictions on the residency of foreign students and journalists
In another legal setback for the US administration, a federal judge in Boston prevented the Department of Homeland Security from implementing a new rule that would have limited the period during which foreign students and journalists could remain in the United States without submitting repeated requests to extend their stay.
US District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor ruled in favor of a coalition of unions and higher education advocacy groups one day before the rule was scheduled to take effect.
Saylor said the Department of Homeland Security adopted the new policy based on "very weak" justifications. Although the Ministry relied on considerations of national security and combating fraud in the visa system, the judge found that it did not comply with the legal requirements related to studying the effects of the change and considering less stringent alternatives.
For its part, the Department of Homeland Security criticized the ruling, considering that it weakens the authorities' ability to control the immigration system. However, the judge pointed out that the system that has been in place for nearly five decades has allowed millions of foreign students and researchers to study and work in the United States and has contributed to major achievements in the fields of science, medicine, and technology.
He added that the new rule would have led to a significant decrease in the number of foreign students, professors and journalists, and would have caused losses of hundreds of millions of dollars to universities and higher education institutions. He described the potential impact of the decision on higher education and the American economy as “catastrophic.”
Saylor pointed out that about 1.6 million people hold Category F visas, while about 500,000 others hold Category J visas, noting that major research universities such as Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology rely heavily on foreign students, especially in graduate programs.
