2026-08-24T17:06:00-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯——最高法院周一允许特朗普政府推进一项行政命令的核心条款实施，该命令旨在收紧11月中期选举前的邮寄投票规则。
最高法院以6票赞成、3票反对的裁决，批准了特朗普政府上月末提出的紧急救济申请，该案涉及23个由民主党主导的州。司法部曾请求最高法院解除下级法院的禁令，该禁令阻止了国土安全部和美国邮政署在这些州以及哥伦比亚特区执行特朗普的部分行政指令。
最高法院在未具名的裁决中表示，这些州提起诉讼的时机尚不成熟。
“本院对本申请的处理并不意味着政府为实施该行政令所采取的任何措施必然合法，”最高法院在未具名的裁决中称，“这一点有待时间验证。但该行政令本身并未对各州造成损害，因此地区法院无权禁止政府尝试实施该命令。”
最高法院的这一举措为国土安全部推进一项提案扫清了障碍，该提案旨在编制各州符合投票资格的居民名单。
在另一起涉及投票权组织的案件中，美国地区法官英迪拉·塔尔瓦尼本月早些时候发布命令，禁止特朗普政府实施行政命令中要求邮政署为即将到来的选举制定邮寄选票新程序的条款。但司法部很可能会辩称，最高法院的裁决也适用于这起案件。
与此同时，此次最高法院的紧急上诉源于塔尔瓦尼站在挑战特朗普行政令的州一边，并裁定宪法并未赋予总统权力，可对各州管理联邦选举的方式做出更改。
最高法院的裁决并不妨碍各州提起诉讼，挑战政府根据特朗普指令最终敲定并实施的相关政策。一些州将在未来几周内开始向选民邮寄即将到来的中期选举的选票。
三名自由派大法官对最高法院的裁决提出了异议。索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官与埃琳娜·卡根大法官一同指出，该裁决“只是推迟了对特朗普政策相关质疑的审理”。
“今天的裁决并未涉及总统试图干预2026年11月选举管理是否合法的问题，”索托马约尔在异议意见中写道，“也未表明行政分支拥有任何宪法或法定权力来执行总统的指令。”
特朗普的行政令
自第二次入主白宫以来，特朗普一直在寻求对联邦选举的多个环节施加管控。作为这些努力的一部分，总统于3月签署了一项行政令，他称该命令旨在保护美国选举的完整性，部分措施是确保非公民不会参与投票。特朗普的这项指令发布之际，距11月中期选举仅数月之遥，此次选举将决定哪个政党控制众议院和参议院。
此案涉及的条款要求国土安全部利用联邦数据库编制“州公民身份名单”，并要求邮政署仅向列入其自身选民资格名单的个人递送邮寄选票。该指令还对邮寄选票信封的设计提出了特定要求，并指示司法部长优先调查和起诉向非公民或其他无资格参与联邦选举投票的人员发放选票的州和地方官员。
美国邮政署于周五发布了最终规则，落实了特朗普行政令中列出的部分计划。该规则规定了联邦邮寄选票信封的必填设计元素，并指示州选举官员向在线门户提交特定数据，包括他们计划向其邮寄选票的选民姓名和地址。
邮政署将利用这些信息，在选举日生成并向各州首席选举官员发送针对各州的“邮寄和缺席投票参与名单”。新规则称，该名单“主要旨在协助选举官员和执法人员了解哪些人可能已收到选票，以便识别可能需要进一步调查的异常事件”。
邮政署表示，其“不会在确定选民资格、维护选民名册或计票方面发挥任何作用”。
该机构表示，一旦政府解除下级法院的禁令，将立即为11月的中期选举实施这项新规则。
对特朗普指令的法律质疑
特朗普总统3月签署行政令数日后，来自23个州和华盛顿特区的民主党官员提起诉讼，试图阻止这些提案。这些州辩称，总统无权限制选民资格或邮寄投票，并表示该行政令试图干预各州对选举的管理，违反了宪法。
另有12个由共和党主导的州介入了诉讼，并与特朗普政府一道主张应驳回此案。
但塔尔瓦尼法官在6月作出裁决称，根据宪法，只有各州有权确定选民资格要求，总统在这一领域没有任何职权。该法官裁定，行政令中管辖国土安全部和邮政署的条款违宪，并禁止特朗普政府在11月3日的选举中，在提起诉讼的23个州实施这些条款。
司法部对该裁决提起上诉，辩称各州的诉讼为时过早。但在上月末以2票赞成、1票反对的裁决中，美国第一巡回上诉法院拒绝让联邦机构在诉讼继续进行期间推进特朗普行政令的实施。
随后特朗普政府请求最高法院介入。司法部称地区法院的禁令“非同寻常”且“站不住脚”，因为联邦机构仍在考虑如何实施总统的行政令。
在提交给最高法院的文件中，副检察长D.约翰·绍尔并未为总统计划的法律依据辩护。相反，他辩称这23个州提起诉讼的时机尚不成熟。绍尔称，联邦机构仍在落实特朗普的指令，因此各州并未因“假设性的未来行动”而受到损害。
“该行政令本质上是总统向下属官员和机构发出的内部指令，要求其开展未来的政策制定工作，”他写道，“原告真正担忧的并非行政令本身——该命令并未要求政府以外的任何人做（或不做）任何事——而是机构在最终落实总统指令时可能采取的具体行动所带来的潜在危害。”
绍尔辩称，地区法院的禁令对政府造成了损害，尤其是在一些州仅数周后就将开始邮寄投票的情况下。
“地区法院的禁令每多存在一天，就会阻碍政府敲定并实施总统为推动11月即将到来的联邦选举的选举完整性而提出的政策的能力，”他写道。
针对政府的请求，由民主党主导的各州警告称，允许总统的行政令实施将引发混乱，并可能剥夺数百万依赖邮寄选票的选民的投票权。
批准政府的紧急救济“将允许联邦政府仓促推出一项前所未有的、法律上站不住脚的选民核查和选票拦截计划，该计划除其他事项外，还将赋予美国邮政署影响深远的新权力和责任，”各州总检察长在一份文件中写道。
他们还辩称，该行政令对各州造成了损害，因为它迫使各州为即将到来的11月选举采取措施遵守其政策。
各州总检察长表示，如果没有下级法院的禁令，州和地方选举官员将被迫将选举准备工作的时间和资源转移出去，“用于编制和转换大量数据以提交给美国邮政署、培训选举官员、对选民进行教育以及更改他们的选票信封”。
除了这23个州之外，一个由民主党竞选委员会组成的联盟也提起诉讼，挑战特朗普的邮寄投票行政令。但在华盛顿特区提起的这起纠纷中，下级法院驳回了民主党阻止该指令实施的请求。
在上月末的一份未具名裁决中，美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院由三名法官组成的一致合议庭表示，此案尚不成熟，不宜进行审查。
“如果被告机构采取的实施行政令的步骤违反联邦法律或宪法，原告可以迅速寻求救济，”哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院合议庭写道。
特朗普长期以来一直批评邮寄投票，并声称有大量非公民在联邦选举中投票，尽管他并未提供支持这一说法的证据。根据联邦法律，非公民在美国选举中投票是非法的，非公民投票的案例也极为罕见。
尽管如此，随着中期选举的临近，总统仍在敦促国会大幅限制邮寄投票，并对选民登记施加新的要求。他的政府还对国土安全部维护的用于核查公民身份和移民身份的联邦数据库进行了全面改革。
但另一名联邦法官阻止了政府使用该中央信息交换所，并发现该数据库已被一些州错误地将美国公民从选民名册中移除。
与此同时，司法部已起诉数十个州以获取其选民名册，但法官们驳回了这些努力。
Supreme Court allows Trump to implement key parts of order restricting mail voting ahead of midterms
2026-08-24T17:06:00-0400 / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Trump’s administration to move ahead with implementing key portions of an executive order that seeks to tighten the rules for mail voting ahead of the November midterm elections.
In a 6-3 ruling, the high court granted a request for emergency relief sought by the Trump administration late last month in a case involving 23 Democratic-led states. The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to lift a lower court’s injunction that stopped agencies from carrying out parts of Mr. Trump’s directive, which involves the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Postal Service, in those states and the District of Columbia.
The high court said in its unsigned decision that the states filed their lawsuit too soon.
“The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful,” the Supreme Court said in an unsigned decision. “On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.”
The move from the high court clears the way for the Department of Homeland Security to move forward with a proposal to create lists of residents in each state who are eligible to vote.
In a separate case involving voting-rights groups, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued an order earlier this month that prevents the Trump administration from implementing the executive order’s provisions that direct the Postal Service to develop new procedures for mail ballots for the upcoming elections. But the Justice Department will likely argue the Supreme Court’s decision applies to that case, too.
The emergency appeal before the Supreme Court, meanwhile, arose after Talwani sided with the group of states that challenged Mr. Trump’s executive order and ruled the Constitution does not grant the president the authority to order changes to how they administer federal elections.
The Supreme Court’s order does not preclude the states from filing lawsuits that challenge the policies finalized and ultimately put in place by the administration in response to Mr. Trump’s directive. Some states are set to begin sending mail ballots to voters for the upcoming midterms in the coming weeks.
The three liberal justices dissented from the Supreme Court’s ruling. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, noted that the decision “merely postpones adjudication” of challenges to Mr. Trump’s policies.
“Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful,” Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. “Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives.”
Trump’s executive order
Since returning to the White House for his second term, Mr. Trump has sought to exert control over aspects of federal elections. As part of those efforts, the president signed in March an executive order that he said aims to protect the integrity of U.S. elections in part by ensuring noncitizens are not casting ballots. Mr. Trump’s directive came just months before the November midterm elections, which will determine which party controls the House and Senate.
The provisions at issue in the case direct DHS to compile “state citizenship lists” using federal databases and call for the Postal Service to deliver mail ballots cast only by individuals who are on its own voter-eligibility lists. The directive also lays out certain design requirements for mail ballot envelopes and instructs the attorney general to prioritize investigations and prosecutions of state and local officials who issue ballots to noncitizens or others who are not eligible to vote in federal elections.
The Postal Service published a final rule Friday putting in place some of the plans laid out in Mr. Trump’s executive order. The rule lays out required design elements for federal mail ballot envelopes and directs state election officials to submit specific data to an online portal, including the names and addresses of voters they intend to send mail ballots to.
Using that information, the Postal Service will then generate and send state-specific “Mail-In and Absentee Participation Lists” to states’ chief election officials on Election Day. The new rule said the lists are “primarily intended to assist election officials and law enforcement to understand who may have been mailed a ballot, in order to identify potentially anomalous incidents that may merit further investigation.”
The Postal Service “will not play any role in determining voter eligibility, maintaining voter rolls, or counting ballots,” it said.
The agency said it would act immediately to implement the new rule for the November midterms once the government obtained relief from lower-court injunctions.
The legal challenge to Trump’s directive
Days after the president signed the executive order in March, Democratic officials from the 23 states and D.C. filed a lawsuit seeking to block the proposals. The states argued that the president has no power to restrict voter eligibility or mail voting, and said the executive order attempts to interfere with their administration of elections in violation of the Constitution.
A separate group of 12 Republican-led states intervened in the lawsuit and, with the Trump administration, argued it should be dismissed.
But Talwani ruled in June that under the Constitution, only the states determine voter-eligibility requirements, and the president lacks any role in that area. The judge held that the provisions of the executive order governing DHS and the Postal Service are unconstitutional, and she blocked the Trump administration from implementing those portions for the Nov. 3 elections in the 23 states that sued.
The Justice Department appealed the ruling, arguing that the states’ lawsuit is premature. But in a 2-1 decision late last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to let federal agencies move forward with implementing Mr. Trump’s executive order as litigation continues.
The Trump administration then asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The Justice Department called the district court’s injunction “extraordinary” and “indefensible” because federal agencies are still considering how to implement the president’s executive order.
In filings with the high court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer did not defend the legal merits of the president’s plans. Instead, he argued that the 23 states filed their lawsuit too soon. Federal agencies, Sauer said, are still implementing Mr. Trump’s directive, so the states are not harmed by “hypothetical future actions.”
The executive order “functions as an internal directive from the President to subordinate officials and agencies to engage in future policymaking,” he wrote. “Respondents’ real concern is not with the Order itself — which does not require anyone outside the government to do (or refrain from doing) anything — but with possible harms that may arise depending upon what specific actions the agencies ultimately decide to take in implementing the President’s directives.”
Sauer argued that it is the government that is harmed by the district court’s injunction, especially with mail voting starting in some states in just weeks.
“Every day that the district court’s injunction remains in place, it blocks the government’s ability to finalize and implement the President’s proposed policies to promote election integrity for the upcoming federal elections in November,” he wrote.
In response to the administration’s request, the Democratic-led states warned that allowing the president’s executive order would lead to confusion and risks disenfranchising millions of voters who rely on mail ballots.
Granting the administration emergency relief “would allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program that would, among other things, give the U.S. Postal Service far-reaching new powers and responsibilities,” the state attorneys general wrote in a filing.
They also argued that the states are harmed by the executive order because it forces them to take steps to comply with its policies for the upcoming November elections.
Without the injunction from the lower court, the state and local election administrators would be forced to divert time and resources away from election-preparation work “to compile and convert voluminous data for submission to USPS, train elections officials, educate voters, and change their ballot envelopes,” the attorneys general said.
In addition to the 23 states, a coalition of Democratic campaign committees filed a lawsuit challenging Mr. Trump’s mail voting executive order. But in that dispute, filed in Washington, D.C., lower courts rebuffed Democrats’ request to prevent the directive’s implementation.
In an unsigned decision last month, a unanimous panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that the case is not yet ripe for review.
“If the defendant agencies take steps to implement the Executive Order in a manner that violates federal law or the Constitution, Plaintiffs can promptly seek relief,” the D.C. Circuit panel found.
Mr. Trump has long criticized mail voting and asserted that significant numbers of noncitizens are voting in federal elections, though he has not provided evidence in support of that claim. It is illegal under federal law for noncitizens to cast ballots in U.S. elections, and instances of noncitizen-voting are rare.
Still, with the midterm elections fast approaching, the president is pressing Congress to significantly curb mail voting and impose new requirements for voter registration. His administration has also overhauled a federal database maintained by DHS to verify citizenship and immigration status.
But a different federal judge blocked the administration’s use of the centralized clearinghouse and found it had been used by some states to incorrectly remove U.S. citizens from their voter rolls.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has sued dozens of states to obtain their voter rolls, though judges have rebuffed those efforts.
