Supreme Court Considers Transgender Military Ban, Mail-in Voting Rules Appealed

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's consideration of new restrictions on mail-in ballots could impact election procedures in South Dakota, potentially affecting how residents cast their votes in future elections. While South Dakota already has well-established absentee voting laws, federal rulings on mail ballot delivery and voter data requirements could necessitate adjustments to state election administration.

---

WASHINGTON D.C. — The Supreme Court and lower federal courts are currently addressing several significant legal challenges, including a military ban, election procedures, and the scope of presidential authority. On Friday, the Trump administration requested the Supreme Court's review of its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer characterized a federal appeals court decision preventing enforcement of the ban as "gravely erroneous." Separately, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman in Maryland declined to issue an immediate injunction against President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship. Judge Boardman questioned the order's legal standing, especially after the Supreme Court rejected a previous related effort. However, she noted that the current lawsuit challenging the order did not specifically reference the 2026 executive order. Judge Boardman will allow immigrant rights advocates to amend their complaint and has established a timeline for further legal challenges. In matters concerning election integrity, the Trump administration appealed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani. Judge Talwani had blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing new restrictions on mail-in ballots. The Postal Service had sought to enforce a rule that would prevent delivery of mail ballots in states that do not share voter data and would only deliver ballots meeting specific criteria, including designated envelope types. Judge Talwani found the rule likely unconstitutional and beyond the agency's authority. The appeal moved to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, setting the stage for further legal decisions regarding ballot handling ahead of midterm elections. In other judicial news, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Friday rejected requests from prediction market platforms for injunctive relief against the Nevada Gaming Control Board. The court concluded that sports-related event contracts fall under state gambling laws, not federal regulation as derivatives. This decision contradicts a ruling from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, creating a circuit split that legal experts anticipate will lead to Supreme Court review. Also last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit addressed the in-home possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse material. The court stated that it was bound by a 2002 Supreme Court precedent that protected depictions of fictional children when no actual child was involved. Two judges warned that modern AI can produce images nearly indistinguishable from material depicting the abuse of real children. Regarding presidential authority, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on Friday rejected President Donald Trump's attempt to move his hush money conviction case to federal court. Judge Hellerstein ruled that Trump had waited too long to make the request and that there was no legal basis for federal court removal. He also stated that discussions regarding hush money payments to conceal a relationship with adult-film actress Stormy Daniels do not constitute an official act within the president's responsibilities. On the Supreme Court's docket, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary administrative stay on August 21, allowing construction on the new White House ballroom to continue. The court may release its final decision on this interim docket case at any time. This Friday at 9:30 a.m. EDT, the court will issue its third and final summer order list. During the 2025-26 term, Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented in five cases, appearing in the majority 92% of the time. This marks a slight increase from the previous year, when she was in the majority 89% of the time. Justice Barrett wrote three dissents: in *T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.*, *Chatrie v. United States*, and *Trump v. Cook*. She also joined dissents in *Bowe v. United States* and *Pitchford v. Cain*. Four of these five dissents occurred in 5-4 decisions.