The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the U.S. Post Office to continue with its bizarre mail-in restrictions, basically acting as the referee over voter lists.
To read more articles by Mark Trahant, go to: Marktrahant.substack.com
But that's not what Team Trump is telling the court. Instead it's just a routine operation, requiring standard envelopes — oh yeah and lists that can be checked for citizenship.
From the administration's emergency filing:
"The Rule's regulation of the U.S. Mail—not federal elections—is plainly constitutional. While the States have primary authority to regulate the manner of elections, they cannot choose to use the federal mails to carry out their elections but then insist that their election-related mail is somehow exempt from the Postal Service's rulemaking authority, conferred by Congress, to regulate envelope design and addressee information. Neither the statutes nor the Constitution contains or compels any such carveout from this type of core regulation of the use of federal mails."
And it's an emergency because ballots are in the mail now.
"Once those ballot envelopes enter the mailstream, there is no retrieving them; ordinary appellate review thus "would come too late" to cover those ballots. California, 2026 WL 2473573, at *4. With respect to the November 2026 election, the order thus partially nullifies the Postal Service's efforts to address the risk that the federal mails will be used to perpetrate voter fraud, 91 Fed. Reg. at 54,969—a particularly pernicious species of fraud that dilutes the votes of lawful voters, prevents election results from reflecting the will of the American people, and undermines "public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process." Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 197 (2008)."
How will the Post Office address this risk? It doesn't know. (We have probably not spent enough time on the mechanics. How much is real, how much of the dream would be along the lines of DOGE? Fantasy. Nonsense. TechoNuts.)
A filing from the states in opposition to the rule:
"That preliminary injunction motion was heard this morning, and the TRO will be dissolved as soon as the district court issues its decision—which the 2 court indicated will likely be as soon as this evening or tomorrow.1 The First Circuit has before it a motion for a stay of the TRO pending appeal on which highly expedited briefing is already complete. Meanwhile, USPS submitted a declaration to the district court today explaining that the Portal is not yet functional and will not be available until, at the earliest, "sometime next week." D. Ct. Dkt. 150-1 ¶ 3.2 In seeking a stay of the TRO from the First Circuit, Applicants did not request relief by any date certain—quite possibly because they knew the Portal is not yet functional, meaning no State is currently in a position to comply with the Rule even if it took effect.
"An administrative stay is not warranted. Applicants cannot show immediate and irreparable harm from a TRO that (a) does not prevent USPS from continuing to develop the Portal, and (b) only prohibits USPS from enforcing requirements as to a Portal that does not exist yet—and to a virtual certainty will not exist before the TRO is dissolved. For that reason alone, the request for an immediate administrative stay should be denied."
(That's the argument that the court used to keep the rules in place — no rules, no action, thus not yet time for the court.)
Only this time ballots are already in the mail and a change of the rules could have significant impact on the outcome (the last hope of a declining regime).
The Democracy Docket says this Supreme Court review is only one more step because the judge in the district court case has only issued an administrative stay. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani may go further, and issue a temporary injunction. That will be appealed. "In other words, even a Supreme Court ruling on the current emergency application may only determine what happens for the next stage of this fast-moving fight, not whether USPS' mail voting rule ultimately survives."
The legal back and forth is confusing voters — and the mechanics of casting and counting ballots. We don't know the result of the litigation (even though the law is clear) but we do know that 1 out of every 3 Americans prefer to vote by mail. That should be protected.
The House Republicans thought they could pass a measure to make sure the Supreme Court stays at 9-members (with its 6-to-3 Trumpian bent). That follows a Democratic bill that would expand the court to 13 members, presumably more balanced.
Another set of proposals by the Brennan Center suggests televising the court.
"The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in favor of a public right to attend trials, which allows people to "have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed." Justices themselves have said before they were confirmed that they support or would be open to considering cameras, only to oppose such an idea after joining the Court. The justices should match their rhetoric with action. If not, Congress has the power to act. Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), for instance, have introduced the Cameras in the Courtroom Act to require cameras in the Supreme Court."
There are broader questions. What should the Supreme Court look like? After Trump? How should it be organized for fairness and independence?
The American Academy of Arts and Sciences has a bipartisan proposal that answers some of those questions (disclosure: I am a member of the Academy.)
At the top of the list, an 18-year term for justices.
From the publication, Our Common Purpose.
The Constitution stipulates that Supreme Court justices serve during good behavior, but it does not explicitly establish the type of judicial work done during a life term nor prevent Congress from enacting terms. Federal legislators have the power to enact eighteen-year terms of work on behalf of the Supreme Court, with justices transitioning at the end of the term to the lower courts with undiminished salary for the remainder of their careers. Justices would also have the option of transitioning to senior status. (In the current system, retired Supreme Court justices automatically transition to senior status.)
Enacting eighteen-year terms for Supreme Court justices would go a long way toward depoliticizing the appointment process, yet for this remedy to be truly effective it would need to be paired with regular appointments: one Supreme Court justice nominated during each term of Congress. With each president responsible for two nominations per term, the nomination process would become less partisan. More important, eighteen-year terms married to regular appointments would help move the Court toward a less partisan future, restoring its legitimacy as an independent arbiter of justice.
We can do more than that. American Indians and Alaska Natives have been impacted by more judicial oversight than any other segment of American society. Yet our representation in the court system is stuck at a fraction of a decimal point and there has never been a Native American on the Supreme Court. We've seen how influential one justice with an Indian law background can be (Justice Neil Gorsuch), so it's not hard to imagine how effective a tribal citizen could be in chambers.
The post Supreme Nonsense and Sensibility appeared first on Native News Online.