Trump Administration Urges Supreme Court Decision on Mail-in Voting Executive Order

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decision on the mail-in voting executive order could directly influence election procedures in Colorado, where the state has implemented extensive mail-in ballot systems, potentially affecting how future elections are conducted and impacting voter access.

---

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has called on the Supreme Court to issue a prompt decision regarding its request to implement an executive order on mail-in voting. On July 27, the administration initially asked the court’s emergency docket to permit the order's enforcement. Twelve states subsequently echoed this request. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have challenged the executive order. Last week, this group formally requested the Supreme Court deny the administration's and states' applications. On Wednesday, the Trump administration reiterated its call for the justices to decide "promptly." U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer stated that quick court action is "critical" on the request, which has been fully briefed for over a week. In related court activity, the Supreme Court released its calendar for the November argument session on Tuesday. The court will also release the second of three summer order lists on Monday at 9:30 a.m. EDT. ### Other Supreme Court Matters **Religious Zoning Case:** A case involving Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew, and the city of University Heights, Ohio, will be considered by the Supreme Court. The dispute centers on the city's rules for small religious gatherings in private homes and whether Grand could sue before receiving a definitive permit denial. CNN reported that this case could expand the ability of religious organizations to challenge zoning laws in residential areas. **Apple App Store Dispute:** The Supreme Court will hear arguments during the 2026-27 term regarding contempt charges against Apple. These charges stem from a federal judge's order requiring Apple to allow app developers to direct users to external storefronts for in-app purchases. Bloomberg reported that the judge found Apple in contempt for imposing a 27% commission on revenue generated through these external purchases. Apple requested a stay on lower-court proceedings while the Supreme Court considers the case; Justice Elena Kagan issued a temporary administrative stay for one day. **Immigration Enforcement and Racial Profiling:** Lawsuits across the country allege that immigration arrests by the Trump administration involve unlawful racial profiling. The New York Times reported that body-camera footage, text messages, and other documents from these lawsuits appear to support claims of federal agents using derogatory, race-based terms for "targets." The report also noted that the Supreme Court's 2025 decision allowing federal officers more leeway in immigration stops in the Los Angeles area has created confusion. These lawsuits are progressing through lower courts and may take years to reach the Supreme Court. **Animal Euthanasia Case:** A legal challenge concerning a dog named Bruce, ordered euthanized as "vicious," reached the Supreme Court's emergency docket on Wednesday. Attorneys representing the Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center and Bruce's guardian, Claire Birgy, asked the justices to prevent Ventura County Animal Services from euthanizing the dog while a federal appeal was pending. The Camarillo Acorn reported that Bruce was euthanized before the Supreme Court responded to the request. **Congressional Calls for Court Reform:** Senator Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, outlined potential reforms for the Supreme Court in a column for the Los Angeles Times. Schiff suggested that future Democratic majorities in Congress should prioritize enacting term limits for justices, expanding the number of justices on the court, and creating an enforceable code of ethics. ### Juvenile Life Sentencing The Supreme Court has issued three rulings on the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishments" as it applies to sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole: * **_Miller v. Alabama_ (2012):** The court ruled that mandating such a sentence is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. It stated that life without parole should be "uncommon" for juveniles and imposed only after considering a child's "diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change." * **_Montgomery v. Louisiana_ (2016):** The court determined that _Miller_ applied retroactively and reiterated that life without parole for a child is excessive except for the "rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption." * **_Jones v. Mississippi_ (2021):** The court held that a separate factual finding of "permanent incorrigibility" is not required before sentencing a juvenile to life without parole. It clarified that _Miller_ only required considering youth as a mitigating factor. A petition for review in the case of _Utah v. Mullins_ awaits the court's attention, urging further clarification. Morris Mullins was sentenced to life without parole at age 17 for aggravated murder. The Utah Supreme Court vacated his sentence, stating the record was unclear on whether his youth was properly considered. Utah's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court argues that state and federal courts are split on whether a judge can impose life without parole after suggesting a juvenile's capacity for change. Mullins' response asserts that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction because his resentencing has not occurred, and the question presented has limited national significance. _Utah v. Mullins_ is scheduled for the court's "long conference" on September 28.