Supreme Court Handled Over 30 Emergency Applications During Summer Recess

Why it matters locally: While the specific election-related disputes mentioned are outside Michigan, the Supreme Court's involvement in cases concerning mail-in voting and voter verification procedures could set precedents that impact Michigan's election administration policies and voter access in future elections.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court considered more than 30 emergency applications between July and September, a period typically designated as the court's summer recess. These filings included requests from the Trump administration and numerous election-related disputes, requiring justices to review briefs and issue orders and opinions. Much of the court's summer activity involved election-related conflicts. These included challenges to efforts by President Donald Trump's administration to restrict mail-in voting and verify state voter rolls before the November midterm elections. Additionally, justices addressed the redistricting dispute in Missouri three times during this period. The Missouri redistricting conflict began after Republican leaders in the state adopted a new congressional map. Opponents, including the group People Not Politicians and its executive director, Richard von Glahn, submitted over 300,000 signatures to place the map on a vote in the 2026 midterm elections. Denny Hoskins, Missouri's Secretary of State, rejected the petition in August, allowing the new map for August primaries. Von Glahn challenged this decision in state court. On September 3, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of von Glahn, stating the referendum petition should appear on the November ballot and that elections should use the previous map. Hoskins asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause this ruling, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied the request on September 8. Immediately following Kavanaugh's decision, a federal judge in Missouri, in a separate case, ordered the state to use the 2025 map in November. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit declined to stay this order, von Glahn and People Not Politicians urged the Supreme Court to intervene again. On September 10, justices granted their request, preventing Missouri from using the new map. The 8th Circuit later heard arguments in the map dispute and, on September 21, held that using the old map in November would violate the Constitution. Von Glahn and People Not Politicians then asked the Supreme Court to pause that ruling. On September 24, the Supreme Court did so without public dissents. The unsigned opinion stated, "The election is not merely upcoming; it has already started. Ballots using the 2022 map have been printed and mailed." It continued, "At this late date, ordering reversion to the 2025 map in the midst of an ongoing election would usher in electoral chaos." Disputes related to President Trump's executive order on election integrity also appeared before the court multiple times. This order, signed in March, included policies on how the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) handles mail-in ballots. The Supreme Court first considered Trump's guidance in August, ruling 6-3 that states challenging the order itself had filed their lawsuit prematurely because the directive had not yet been implemented. The USPS then issued its rule for mail-in voting. A federal judge in Boston prohibited the USPS from implementing new requirements for ballot envelopes and voter tracking. On September 14, the Supreme Court, by a 7-2 vote, upheld her decision, effectively ensuring new mail-in voting restrictions would not take effect before the November elections. In a related dispute, justices considered a second executive order on election integrity. This order directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) to create systems for state and local governments to verify voter citizenship status. DHS and SSA modified the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database for this purpose. The League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center challenged these SAVE system changes in federal court, alleging violations of federal laws, including the Social Security Act. A federal judge sided with them, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined to pause her order preventing the government from using the modified SAVE system. On September 8, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to pause the lower-court ruling. The court, by a 6-3 vote, granted that request on September 24, concluding that the challengers' claims "likely lack merit." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Beyond election issues, the Trump administration sought relief in other matters. These included an ongoing conflict over the construction of a new White House ballroom and a request for the justices to address deporting noncitizens to countries not listed on their removal orders. The ballroom dispute involved the National Trust for Historic Preservation suing to block construction, arguing congressional authorization was lacking. On August 21, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay in the ballroom case. Ten days later, the court, by a 5-4 vote, paused the lower-court ruling, holding that the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely lacked standing. Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by the court's three Democratic appointees. An application concerning deportations to third-party countries remains pending. The Trump administration asked the court to pause a lower-court ruling preventing the government from deporting noncitizens to a country not identified on their removal orders without prior notification and opportunity to raise concerns about persecution or torture. Other notable emergency applications included a surrogacy dispute and a case concerning a dog named Bruce. The surrogacy application came from McKenna West, an Alaska woman involved in a complex custody battle. Justice Elena Kagan denied West's request on September 22 without comment. The case involving Bruce, a 3-year-old dog, sought to prevent euthanasia while a challenge proceeded, but the dog was euthanized before the Supreme Court could act.