Justice Samuel Alito is one of the conservative stalwarts on the Supreme Court.
Alito isn’t known for holding his tongue.
And Samuel Alito unleashed hell when the Supreme Court dropped this mail-in ballot ruling.
Lawfare Over Trump’s Mail-In Ballot Executive Order
Back in March, President Trump signed an executive order requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to construct a roster of all eligible voters who could receive a mail-in ballot.
The order also required the United States Postal Service to develop new standards for mail-in ballot envelopes, such as a unique barcode.
Trump’s logic for the executive order was simple: the federal government’s job was to help states ensure only legal voters cast mail-in ballots and that every voter was who they said they were.
California led a coalition of 23 Democrat states suing the Trump administration to block the order, arguing that the Constitution empowers states to run elections.
A rogue left-wing District Court Judge in Massachusetts named Indira Talwani, who also issued a series of lawless rulings blocking the provisions of the Big Beautiful Bill that defunded Planned Parenthood that were promptly overturned, issued rulings blocking the order from taking effect.
Trump and his supporters maintained that the only reason to sue to stop this order from taking effect was that Democrats planned to cheat in the midterm election.
Alito’s Explosive Dissent in Mail-In Ballot Case
Trump appealed to the Supreme Court to lift the ruling blocking the executive order from taking effect before the midterm election, as preventing voter fraud is a vital interest.
But the Supreme Court handed down a 7-2 ruling, with so-called “Republican” justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and John Roberts joining the left, rejecting Trump’s appeal.
The majority ruled there wasn’t enough time remaining in the election cycle to put the order into effect.
Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissent signed by Clarence Thomas, shredded this illogical ruling.
Alito argued it was ridiculous for the states to argue there wasn’t enough time left before the election to implement the executive order when their legal wrangling was the cause for the delay in the first place.
“The plaintiff States cannot claim the TIMING of the rule tilts the equities in their favor when they, and courts hearing their claims, are RESPONSIBLE for so much of the delay,” Alito wrote.
Alito went on to point out that the Democrat states gummed up the works with a series of injunctions in courts that lacked the jurisdiction to issue them as a key factor in the delay.
“Not only was the Government subject to MONTHS of premature litigation and a series of injunctions that this Court later determined were likely issued WITHOUT JURISDICTION — the Government had to wait nearly another full MONTH for this Court to issue its decision so holding,” Alito added.
Alito also asserted that the states lacked standing to even bring this suit in the first place because the executive order didn’t place any burden on the states, so they couldn’t prove any harm.
“The District Court issued a nationwide injunction based on claims asserted by several plaintiff organizations that likely lack standing,” Alito went on to write.
Alito then explained that the administration likely would have won on the merits since the crux of the case was “whether the Postal Service has statutory authority to promulgate the rule,” and argued they would have lost because the Postal Service “has broad authority to regulate the mail.”
Great American Digest will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and other breaking news in politics. Please bookmark our site, make it your homepage, and share our content with your friends on social media and by email.
