Trump’s Supreme Court election bid may not be what it seems

A recent filing to the U.S. Supreme Court from President Donald Trump's Justice Department prompted Georgetown Law School Professor Steve Vladeck to flag a key piece being ignored and misconstrued in the reporting.

Less than 100 days before the 2026 midterm elections, Trump is demanding that the high court let the federal government take over the elections in 23 states and the District of Columbia. Filed on Monday, Trump v. California will ultimately be a battle over whether Trump can use his power over the U.S. Postal Service to refuse mail service of ballots in blue states.

On Wednesday, another case was filed by red states against blue states asking the Supreme Court to stay an injunction that stops federal agencies from fully implementing Trump's order on the mail-in ballot ban.

What Valdeck explained is that the framing around the case is being "wildly overstate[d]."

"What the justices were actually asked to do ... is messier—and, for now, far less apocalyptic," he explained.

The underlying issue returns to the question of executive authority and whether the president can use the USPS to tamper with an election. It isn't necessarily about whether Trump can fiddle with the election; "it involves who can challenge Trump’s order and when—not whether the order is legally valid on its face," Vladeck explained.

So, even if the Supreme Court steps in and grants a hearing of both cases, it's only putting off the core part of his executive order.

According to Vladeck (including his own emphasis), "Either the Trump administration is going to take meaningful steps to implement this executive order before the election (at which point, the standing and ripeness issues necessarily go away) or it isn’t (in which case, it’s impossible to see how the federal government is suffering the kind of irreparable harm that is supposed to be necessary to obtain emergency relief from the Supreme Court)."

Regardless of the decision, what will happen in either case ultimately leaves the matter of whether the federal government can meddle in an election unresolved, he said.

So far, five lawsuits have been filed against the administration for the order, and the one at the Supreme Court is a joint suit with 23 states and D.C.

He cited Judge Indira Talwani's June 25 ruling, which granted summary judgment to the states, meaning she ruled without a trial. The judge called it “legally void.” Making it clear, "The President plays no role in the regulation of elections.”

Vladeck said that the court’s ruling on the statute is just as important, and it's also likely harder for the government to debate much less overturn. Judge Talwani said Congress has not given the Postal Service the power to control mail-in voting, or even to sort mail, much less to refuse to deliver ballots for some voters.

There's an easier argument, that whatever step the federal government tries to take, it can't do it without Congress. Right now, Congress can't even pass a budget, much less decide on whether the Post Office can sort mail and refuse to deliver some items but not others.

The second point, he cited from the judge's ruling, is that the short timeline left “no allowance for Congress’ mandated procedure regarding USPS rulemaking.” Congress requires steps that the USPS must follow if it intends to make new rules for mail. It can't do that on the current timeline before the November election, and those steps can't be skipped by law.

So, she shut down Sections 2 and 3 of Trump's order for the Nov. 3 election. Trump is now taking it to the Supreme Court, debating the timeline point in the decision, but not the rest of it.

Judge Talwani published an interim order, saying: “[I]n light of the EO’s specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period . . . postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs," meaning the states.

The red states asked for a stay of her ruling before an appeal could be decided, saying that the blue states didn't even have standing in the case. It's particularly important that they didn't fight what the judge ruled about Section 3 of the case. They only debated Section 2.

Vladeck said that reports claiming the ruling was a "divided one" don't capture the specifics. Newly appointed Trump judge, Joshua Dunlap actually "agreed with Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman with respect to Section 3 of the executive order (the USPS-specific provisions)—i.e., that it should remain paused for the duration of the litigation."

Because they didn't mount a defense for Section 3 of Trump's order, the administration has "no other basis to demonstrate likelihood of success as to the injunction barring implementation of that provision," the majority said.

He closed by saying that the cases are absolutely a "big deal," and the executive order a "bigger deal," however "even the best-case scenario for the Trump administration here is a narrow procedural victory in the Supreme Court that puts off Section 3’s reckoning only for a matter of weeks." Vladeck explained it's "more than the government deserves," but it won’t matter as much as it will look, and it won’t be as big a deal as the media will probably make it seem.