2026-09-20T07:00:25-04:00 / 福克斯新闻频道
法律专家表示，此案的关键在于大法官们如何看待这份行政令：它是在规范选举还是邮政业务
撰稿：罗伯特·施马德 福克斯新闻
发布于 2026年9月20日 美国东部时间早上7:00
乔纳森·特利：各州对选举拥有首要管辖权，这“毋庸置疑”
福克斯新闻特约撰稿人、宪法法律律师乔纳森·特利在《美国报道》节目中，就联邦法官叫停唐纳德·特朗普总统限制邮寄投票的行政令一事发表评论。
【新功能】您现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了！
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/c497600a-f57a-4786-9bb1-a69c258b6efd
收听本文
时长：5分钟
法律专家在接受福克斯新闻数字频道采访时表示，特朗普政府能否在2028年总统大选前推出新的联邦邮寄选票规则，目前存在法律不确定性。
总统于今年3月发布一项行政令，指示邮政总局为联邦邮寄选票制定新规则，包括使用带有“官方选举邮件”标识和唯一机器可读条形码的标准化选票信封。根据该行政令，邮政总局有权拒绝接收不符合新标准的选票，以及不属于州提交的合格邮寄选民名单上的个人的选票。
9月14日，美国最高法院拒绝解除一项初步禁令，阻止该规则在11月中期选举前实施。如今，特朗普的这些改革能否在2028年大选前推行，成为华盛顿关注的焦点。
接受福克斯新闻数字频道采访的专家认为，此次裁决的关键在于最高法院如何解读行政与立法分支之间的权力竞合理由：行政分支规范邮件的权力，与各州自主管理选举的权利。
美国邮政总局不会向拒绝提供邮寄选民信息的州递送选票——根据拟议规则
2026年3月31日，美国华盛顿白宫椭圆形办公室，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普展示已签署的行政令。特朗普于当日签署行政令，旨在加大选民邮寄投票的难度，升级了他长期以来针对数百万美国人使用的邮寄投票方式的反对运动。（亚伦·施瓦茨/CNP/彭博社 via 盖蒂图片社）
“如果最高法院认为这主要是总统试图规范联邦选举的行为，那么法院很可能会宣布该行政令无效，”佛罗里达州立大学法学教授迈克尔·莫利告诉福克斯新闻数字频道，“总统对联邦选举没有宪法权力，国会也没有授予他这一领域广泛的法定权力。”
不过，莫利表示，如果最高法院从另一个角度审视此案，结果可能会有所不同。
“相比之下，法院可能会将新规则主要视为邮政总局为确保高效运营、保护[邮件]完整性而制定的行政要求，”他说，“从这个角度来看，该规则将被视为一件更为平淡无奇的事情，很可能会得到支持。如果法院认定邮政总局无权规范数百万件重要（即与选举相关）邮件的提交和递送流程，那将是不同寻常的。”
阿拉巴马州总检察长马歇尔回击美国邮政总局邮寄选票令批评者：‘这关乎保障选举安全’
左图：唐纳德·特朗普总统；右图：2020年美国大选的缺席选票。一名联邦法官于周二叫停美国邮政总局实施特朗普行政令中部分收紧邮寄投票规则的内容，该规则原计划在2026年中期选举前生效。（盖蒂图片社）
最高法院以7票支持、2票反对的投票结果维持禁令，阻止特朗普的行政令在中期选举前实施。大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯和塞缪尔·阿利托持反对意见，而大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺投票支持维持禁令，他指出，尽管邮政局可能有权实施此类监管，但强制要求在选举临近之际推行新规则，很可能违反联邦法律。
一些人试图利用此次裁决预测最高法院最终将如何就邮政总局规范与选举相关邮件的权力的实质问题作出裁决。
联邦法官叫停特朗普政府在中期选举前限制邮寄选票的行为
缺席选票信封（盖蒂图片社）
“至少有六位大法官似乎认为政府会在实质问题上败诉，” libertarian卡托研究所的法律研究员斯蒂芬·里奇告诉福克斯新闻数字频道，“宪法并未将规范选举的权力授予总统，我认为他们会说，这项行政令实际上规定了选举的运作方式。”
“宪法将管理选举的权力授予了国会和各州。而这项要求看起来确实像是对邮寄投票选举管理的额外要求，”曾在亚利桑那州担任共和党选举官员的里奇补充道。
不过，也有人认为最高法院的裁决主要是程序性考量，而非对政府规范邮寄投票的努力的正式驳斥。
“卡瓦诺大法官的投票决定了此次裁决的结果，他明确表示，他认为邮政总局很可能拥有法定权力，要求为联邦选票邮件提供经过验证的选民名单和防篡改信封，”美国优先政策研究所高级法律研究员查德·米泽尔告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。
“他的结论是，中期选举前剩余的时间太少，无法负责任地实施该规则。这是一个时间问题，而非对基本法律的裁决，”米泽尔补充道，他最近曾担任司法部办公厅主任。“此案的核心问题非常基本：为选票邮件提供经过验证的选民名单和防篡改信封。这种链条监护标准，大多数人会认为对于选票这类重要事物早已存在。”
无论最高法院的最终裁决对该规则的未来意味着什么，总统都将阻止该规则在2026年选举中实施的禁令描述为重大失败。
流浪汉区伪造文件、非法投票与一位市长候选人：全国范围内选举欺诈案件激增
唐纳德·特朗普总统
“共和党刚刚在美国最高法院又遭遇了一次糟糕的裁决，法院花了很长时间才做出裁决，然后还将部分责任归咎于没有时间为我们彻底腐败、失控的邮寄投票‘灾难’找到解决方案，”法院作出裁决后不久，总统在Truth Social上写道，“这对共和党和美国本身都是巨大的损失，让激进左翼‘民主党’在邮寄选票上作弊变得容易得多。”
确实存在个别选举和邮寄选票欺诈案件，但这并不表明美国邮寄投票中存在广泛的欺诈行为。
然而，如果特朗普对其邮寄投票规则的影响的看法是正确的，那么随着选举日的临近，仍有一个重大疑问悬而未决。
“这是一个有趣的问题。并非板上钉钉，”前法学教授、现任右翼曼哈顿研究所高级研究员伊利亚·夏皮罗告诉福克斯新闻数字频道，“这与邮寄投票是好是坏无关。而是关乎谁有权制定相关规则，是州政府、国会，还是根据相当宽泛的一般邮政法规行事的联邦机构。”
【点击此处下载福克斯新闻APP】
福克斯新闻数字频道于周五联系白宫寻求置评，但未收到回应。
‘Not a slam dunk’: Trump’s 2028 mail-vote push hinges on one big legal question
2026-09-20T07:00:25-04:00 / Fox News
Legal experts say the case hinges on whether justices view the executive order as regulating elections or postal operations
By Robert Schmad Fox News
Published September 20, 2026 7:00am EDT
‘No question’ states have primary role over elections, Jonathan Turley says
Fox News contributor and constitutional law attorney Jonathan Turley discusses a federal judge’s decision to halt President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting mail-in voting on ‘America Reports.’
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
blob:https://www.foxnews.com/c497600a-f57a-4786-9bb1-a69c258b6efd
Listen to this article
5 min
President Donald Trump faces legal uncertainty over whether his administration can put new federal mail-ballot rules in place ahead of the 2028 presidential election, legal experts told Fox News Digital.
The president issued an executive order in March directing the Postal Service to pursue new rules for federal mail ballots, including standardized ballot envelopes with an Official Election Mail designation and unique machine-readable barcodes. Per the order, the Postal Service would be empowered to turn away ballots that failed to meet its new standards, or those belonging to individuals who don’t appear on state-submitted lists of eligible mail voters.
On Sept. 14, the Supreme Court declined to lift a preliminary injunction blocking the rules from being implemented ahead of November’s midterm elections. Now, whether or not his changes can be implemented before the 2028 election looms large over Washington.
Experts who spoke to Fox News Digital argued that the ruling will hinge on how the Supreme Court parses competing claims to authority between the executive branch’s ability to regulate mail and the right of states to administer elections however they see fit.
USPS WOULDN’T DELIVER BALLOTS IN STATES THAT REFUSE TO FORK OVER MAIL-IN VOTER INFO UNDER PROPOSED RULE
US President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, March 31, 2026. Trump signed an executive order Tuesday intended to make it harder for voters to cast mail-in ballots, escalating his long-running campaign against a practice used by millions of Americans.(Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“If the Court views this primarily as an attempt by the President to regulate federal elections, the Court is likely to invalidate it,” Florida State University law professor Michael Morley told Fox News Digital. “The President has no constitutional authority over federal elections and Congress has not delegated him broad statutory authority over the field.”
If the Supreme Court views the case through another lens, however, Morley says that could change things.
“In contrast, the Court may instead view the new rules primarily as administrative requirements for the post office to ensure efficient operations and protect the integrity of the [mail],” he said. “Viewed from this perspective, the rule would be viewed as a much more prosaic matter and likely be upheld. It would be remarkable for the Court to conclude the Postal Service lacks authority to regulate the process through which millions of parcels of important (i.e., election-related) mail are submitted for delivery.”
ALABAMA AG MARSHALL FIRES BACK AT USPS MAIL-BALLOT ORDER CRITICS: ‘THIS IS ABOUT SECURING ELECTIONS’
President Donald Trump, left, and an absentee ballot for the 2020 U.S. election. A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing part of Trump’s executive order tightening mail-in voting rules ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.(Getty Images)
The Supreme Court ruled by a margin of 7-2 to uphold the injunction preventing Trump’s executive order from being implemented ahead of the midterms. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted to uphold the injunction, noting that, though the Post Office may have the authority to implement such a regulation, forcing its new rule to be implemented so close to an election likely runs afoul of federal law.
Some have attempted to use the ruling to predict how the court will ultimately rule on the merits of the Post Office’s ability to regulate election-related mail.
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FROM RESTRICTING MAIL-IN BALLOTS AHEAD OF MIDTERMS
Absentee envelopes(Getty Images)
“At least six justices seem to think that the administration will lose on the merits,” Stephen Richer, a legal fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital. “The Constitution doesn’t vest authority to regulate elections to the president and I think that they would say that this effectively dictates how elections can be run.”
“The Constitution delegates brought authority to the Congress and to the states to administer elections. And having this requirement sure seems like an additional requirement for administering mail voting elections,” Richer, who was formerly a Republican election official in Arizona, continued.
Others, however, see the court’s ruling as primarily a procedural consideration rather than a proper rebuke of the administration’s efforts to regulate mail voting.
“Justice Kavanaugh, whose vote decided this outcome, was explicit that he believes the Postal Service likely has the statutory authority to require verified voter lists and tamper-resistant envelopes for federal ballot mail,” America First Policy Institute senior legal fellow Chad Mizelle told Fox News Digital.
“He concluded there simply wasn’t enough time left before the midterms to implement the rule responsibly. That’s a timing question, not a ruling on the underlying law,” Mizelle, who recently served as the chief of staff at the Justice Department, added. “What’s at issue here is pretty basic: verified voter lists and tamper-resistant envelopes for ballot mail. The kind of chain-of-custody standards most people would assume already exist for something as important as a ballot.”
Regardless of what the Supreme Court’s decision ultimately means for the rule’s future, the president has characterized the injunction blocking its implementation in the 2026 elections as a major defeat.
SKID ROW FORGERIES, ILLEGAL VOTES AND A MAYORAL CANDIDATE: ELECTION FRAUD CASES PILE UP NATIONWIDE
President Donald Trump
“Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court, one that the Court System took forever to give, and then blamed it, in part, on no time left to implement a solution to our totally CORRUPT and out of control Mail-In voting ‘disaster,’” the president wrote on Truth Social shortly after the court handed down its decision. “It is a big loss for Republicans, and America itself, and makes cheating by the Radical Left ‘Dumocrats,’ on Mail-In Ballots, a much easier thing to d.”
There have been individual cases of election and mail-ballot fraud, but they do not show that widespread fraud is occurring across U.S. mail voting.
If the president is right about the impact of his mail voting rule, however, that leaves a big question mark on the board as Election Day approaches.
“It’s an interesting issue. It’s not a slam dunk,” Ilya Shapiro, a former law professor and current senior fellow at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute, told Fox News Digital. “And it’s not about whether mail voting is good or bad. It’s about who gets to set the rule for it, whether it’s the state, Congress, or federal agency acting under general postal statutes that are quite broad.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The White House did not respond to a request for comment when reached by Fox News Digital on Friday.
发表回复