Supreme Court Addresses Mail-In Voting, Judicial Action in Recent Decisions

Why it matters locally: The historical context of the Dred Scott decision directly references Scott's time spent in Illinois, a 'free territory' at the time, which was a significant factor in his legal challenge for freedom.

---

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration last week asked the Supreme Court to allow the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting. Twelve states, led by Alabama, filed a separate application supporting this request. On Monday, a coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order urged the court to uphold a lower-court decision that restricts its full implementation. The dispute centers on the timing of the states’ lawsuit, with the administration arguing that the challenge was filed prematurely. CNN reported that the "Purcell principle," which advises federal courts against making last-minute changes to voting rules, is relevant to the emergency docket dispute. If the Supreme Court agrees with the administration's timing argument, the states would need to re-file their litigation closer to the November election. Also on Monday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied a request from the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority. They sought to pause a $655.5 million judgment against them while preparing an appeal. The judgment resulted from a case brought by American victims of attacks in Israel. **Morning Reads** CNN reported on the Supreme Court's potential application of the "Purcell principle" in the mail-in voting case. This principle cautions against last-minute alterations to election rules. The report indicated that the administration’s core argument is that the states challenging the order filed their lawsuit too soon. If the Supreme Court accepts this argument, it could delay the litigation until closer to the November election, potentially allowing the administration to invoke the Purcell principle. The New York Times highlighted Senator Susan Collins of Maine's vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. This vote has remained a topic of discussion during her current re-election campaign, particularly after Justice Kavanaugh voted with the majority in 2022 to overturn *Roe v. Wade*. Collins has stated she does not regret her support for Kavanaugh, despite reported frustrations about the ongoing public reaction to the confirmation process. Reuters reported that 25 Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday in the U.S. Court of International Trade. The lawsuit challenges the president's recent tariffs on goods from 60 trading partners, asserting that these tariffs exceed his legal authority to tax imports. These new tariffs, imposed on July 24, aimed to rebuild the tariff regime following a Supreme Court decision in February that struck down previous tariffs. The states argue that Section 301 tariffs historically targeted specific nations and industries, contrasting with what they describe as the administration's broader approach. Reason magazine interviewed Ori Zohar, co-founder of Burlap & Barrel, a spice importer, regarding his company's efforts to challenge the Trump administration's tariffs. Burlap & Barrel is a lead plaintiff in a challenge to temporary tariffs imposed after the Supreme Court overturned tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The company has also sued against tariffs announced last month, which are stated to combat "forced labor." Zohar noted the role of small businesses in challenging the tariff regime. The San Antonio Express-News detailed a new lawsuit challenging Texas Senate Bill 10, a law requiring the display of Ten Commandments posters in public school classrooms where they have been donated. While the law previously withstood a First Amendment challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, three Houston-area mothers are now challenging it. They contend that SB10 violates a parental rights amendment added to the Texas Constitution last November, as well as the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This suit could represent the first legal test of the GOP-backed constitutional amendment on parental rights, which states that parents have the right to make decisions regarding their child’s upbringing. **On Site** Lawyers representing 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted a 45-page filing to the Supreme Court. They requested that the court leave in place a federal court order from Boston that prevents the federal government from fully implementing an executive order on mail-in voting. The challengers stated that granting a request to pause the lower court’s order "would allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program." In his Controlling Opinions column, Richard Re examined the Roberts court's references to "a law trapped in amber," which describes the idea of a law’s meaning being unchangeably fixed. Re stated that the court has "indirectly embraced a form of living constitutionalism" through this language. Steven Gow Calabresi, in his inaugural Born Free and Equal column, discussed the concept of the "American national creed" that all individuals are "born free and equal." His column aims to explore how the Supreme Court has aligned with this creed. **Dred Scott** Dred Scott, born enslaved in Virginia around 1799, became the plaintiff in a landmark Supreme Court case. In 1833, Dr. John Emerson purchased Scott and took him to free territories, including Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory. In 1846, Scott sued Emerson's widow for his freedom, citing the doctrine of "once free, always free." After initial legal victories and subsequent reversals, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1857, the court ruled 7-2 that descendants of enslaved Africans were not U.S. citizens and therefore lacked standing to sue in federal courts. Chief Justice Roger Taney’s decision, intended to resolve the national debate over slavery, intensified sectional tensions leading to the Civil War. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, Scott and his family gained their freedom shortly thereafter. In May 1857, Taylor Blow, a friend and former owner's son, acquired ownership of Scott and his family for $750 and subsequently freed them. Scott worked as a porter and greeter at Barnum’s Hotel in St. Louis, engaging with guests interested in his story. In June 1857, Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper featured engravings of Scott and Harriet, marking one of the first instances of formerly enslaved individuals being portrayed in the national press. Historian Adam Arenson characterized the portraits as showing the family as "dignified but without joy." Scott passed away from tuberculosis in September 1858, just over a year after his emancipation. He was reinterred at Calvary Cemetery in St. Louis, with both his original and reinterment plots purchased by Blow. Scott remarked to a reporter that the case, which lasted over a decade, had caused him "a heap o’ trouble," stating he would not have pursued it had he known it would take so long.