Supreme Court expert exposes huge contradiction in latest pro-Trump ruling

The Supreme Court issued yet another Trump-friendly ruling this week, and as CNN's top court expert revealed, the decision was built on a massive contradiction and seems destined to be litigated once again in the near future.

On Monday, the court voted 6-3 to allow President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to restrict mail-in voting to move forward ahead of the midterm elections, as the rest of the legal battles surrounding it play out. As the New York Times explained, the order "directed the U.S. Postal Service to help decide which voters should receive mail-in ballots" and added that" the Department of Homeland Security will also create lists of U.S. citizens that the administration believes could be used to monitor voter rolls for noncitizens." The vote, as has become common for the Supreme Court, fell along partisan lines, with the six conservative justices voting in favor, and the three liberal justices dissenting.

On Tuesday, CNN host Wolf Blitzer welcomed the network's chief Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic as a guest during the latest edition of The Situation Room, and asked about what she made of the ruling and its implications.

"The action by the Supreme Court yesterday was limited, but it could show some openness to what Donald Trump wants here, and that is to curtail mail-in ballots," Biskupic explained. "And, you know, 23 states had sued the federal government, sued Donald Trump to try to get this changed before we get too close to November. What the Supreme Court said yesterday was your suit isn't timely. It's not ready yet because we don't know exactly what the Trump order is going to say. The DHS and the Postal Service had not finalized their rules by the time this case first came up. The Postal Service now has finalized something as of Friday, so I think that these complaints will be amended and they'll go forward."

She added later: "This case and one that's been also filed in Massachusetts by the League of Women Voters — also taking the same kind of position that this is interfering with state authority as dictated by the Constitution — those cases will move forward now with more finalized orders and actual action by the trump administration. And I expect this whole ordeal to return to the Supreme Court."

Biskupic also highlighted a portion from the dissent penned by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in which she argued that the ruling created "sort of a dilemma for people who want to sue the administration for these rules," given the way it contradicts a past ruling stressing that such cases cannot be brought too close to an election.

"A 2006 ruling by the Supreme Court said that you can't have federal courts get involved too close to the election," she explained. "But yet this case essentially says you can't sue too early. So where is that sweet spot where you can actually have a challenge and get it resolved in time?"