By Andrew Chung
Aug 25 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump has been pushing to implement his executive order restricting the use of mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections, but a federal judge blocked it.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed him a win, lifting that judicial order, but other challenges remain.
WHAT IS THE EXECUTIVE ORDER?
Issued in March, the order directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit to the states a list of U.S. citizens eligible
to vote in each state, and the Justice Department to prioritize investigating and potentially prosecuting state and local election officials who issue ballots to people deemed "not eligible" to vote in federal elections.
It also required the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters on each state's approved mail-in ballot list.
HOW DID THE LEGAL CHALLENGES PLAY OUT?
California and a group of 22 other states, as well as Washington, D.C., sued to halt Trump's directive, contending that it would cause confusion before the midterms and disenfranchise a substantial number of voters.
In June, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the order from taking effect in those states, finding that the president lacked the authority to order changes in how states administer federal elections, and that federal agencies lack the ability to compile accurate citizen lists for each state.
WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT DO?
The administration sought the Supreme Court's intervention on an emergency basis, and on Monday the court's 6-3 conservative majority lifted Talwani's injunction, ruling that the states' legal claims were premature and that they had not yet suffered concrete harms.
But the court's decision left the door open to a new challenge in the coming months once federal agencies finalize how they will implement Trump's order.
"The court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell," the majority's decision stated. The court's three liberal justices dissented.
WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON MAIL-IN VOTING?
The full impact remains uncertain, as another injunction issued by Talwani in August in a separate case that blocks the USPS from implementing Trump's order remains in place. The Supreme Court's decision did not affect that judicial order.
Despite the judicial orders, the USPS issued a final rule on Friday to carry out Trump's directive on mail-in voting. Under the rule, states must supply the USPS with lists of mail ballot recipients, and all outbound and return ballot envelopes must bear unique barcodes. The USPS would check that envelopes meet the rule's standards, though it would not be responsible for verifying whether voters are eligible to cast ballots, according to the administration.
The rule is already facing legal challenges before Judge Talwani.
HOW DID DEMOCRATS AND THE WHITE HOUSE REACT?
California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, vowed further legal action. "The Supreme Court just let the Trump administration move ahead (for now) with its plan to disenfranchise voters across the country. California will be suing AGAIN to block these Orwellian rules from being implemented," he said in a statement.
White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis called the decision a win for election security. "These are commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders. This administration will continue to lawfully enact the agenda President Trump was elected on – which includes the safety and security of our elections," Bis said.
(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Nate Raymond; Editing by Michael Learmonth and Lisa Shumaker)
