Supreme Court Addresses Mail-in Voting and White House Ballroom Construction

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's review of the Trump administration's executive order on mail-in voting and potential U.S. Postal Service regulations could significantly impact how elections are administered in North Dakota, particularly concerning the delivery of mail ballots.

---

WASHINGTON – Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay on Friday, temporarily permitting construction to continue on a new White House ballroom. This order paused a lower court ruling that would have halted above-ground work on the project. Separately, the Supreme Court is currently reviewing an emergency request from the Trump administration concerning President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting. The administration filed this request on July 27, seeking to implement the order fully. The court has received all briefings on the matter since Aug. 4, and a decision may be issued at any time. In a related development, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) published regulations on Friday that could restrict mail voting. The New York Times reported that these regulations align with President Trump’s executive order, which aims to limit mail ballots and establish state-by-state lists of citizens for voting eligibility. According to the USPS, these regulations would prevent the delivery of mail ballots in states that do not share voter data with the federal agency. The USPS stated it would not implement these rules specifically for the 2026 election unless the Supreme Court rules in favor of the administration. The Department of Justice (DOJ) also faces potential Supreme Court review regarding its practice of appointing acting U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. The Hill reported that two appeals court panels recently ruled against the DOJ’s method of reassigning interim appointees to maintain their prosecutorial duties. These rulings affirmed the disqualification of Sigal Chattah in Nevada and John Sarcone III in the Northern District of New York from serving as acting heads of U.S. attorney’s offices. A DOJ spokesperson indicated the department disagrees with these decisions and plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. Legal analyses from various sources provided additional context on the judiciary. Ed Whelan, writing for Confirmation Tales, discussed the circumstances leading to historical Supreme Court appointments, citing the health issues that paved the way for John Marshall to become Chief Justice. SCOTUSblog’s Stephen Wermiel examined the strategic role of the U.S. Solicitor General, sometimes referred to as the “tenth justice,” in influencing Supreme Court rulings. Brian Fitzpatrick, also on SCOTUSblog, highlighted the growth of originalism and suggested a need for more originalist scholarship focused on state constitutions. Ross Guberman, in a SCOTUSblog column, analyzed writing techniques employed by Supreme Court justices during the 2025-26 term, offering them as models for advocates. He noted how justices address complex legal reasoning, manage factual disputes, and narrow legal issues. Justice Elena Kagan commented in July on the Supreme Court’s caseload during an appearance before the House Appropriations subcommittee. She noted a “more than ordinary emergency caseload” but an “ordinary regular docket.” Kagan stated that the court’s regular docket has decreased significantly since the late 1980s, from approximately 140 regularly argued cases annually to about 70 today. She indicated this number has remained relatively stable over the last 15 years. The 2025-26 term saw 58 arguments, following 62 in the previous term and 61 in the 2023-24 term. This contrasts with 197 arguments in 1976 and 186 in 1972. The last time the court heard over 100 arguments per term was in 1997, with 102 cases. Steve Vladeck suggested the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988 contributed to this decrease, granting justices greater control over which cases they hear. Adam Liptak in 2009 and Erwin Chemerinsky attributed the shrinking docket partly to changes in the court's composition, with the trend beginning under Chief Justice William Rehnquist and accelerating under Chief Justice Roberts. While the merits docket has decreased, the interim docket has seen an increase, with 130 emergency applications in OT2024, the highest since at least 2005.