Login
You're viewing the front-end.social public feed.

Replies

  • Matt Blazemattblaze@federate.social
    Sep 11, 2026, 1:30 AM

    Note that the court is not actually being asked to rule on the full merits of the legality of the executive order and USPS rules. That's a long way away.

    Rather, this is "just" a procedural matter, but a critically important one. The lower court issued a preliminary injunction against the USPS enforcing the new rules while the case proceeds. The Supreme Court was asked (by the USPS) to overturn that injunction so the rules can take effect for the midterms.

    @heidilifeldman

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Matt Blazemattblaze@federate.social
    Sep 11, 2026, 1:34 AM

    So the Court's next ruling here (which could come at any time) will effectively decide whether the new rules will apply to *this* election. But whichever way the Court rules now, the lower court (and, surely, eventually the Supreme Court) will later hear the full case and make a final ruling on the legality of the EO and USPS rules. But that won't be for a while.

    @heidilifeldman

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 1
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Matt Blazemattblaze@federate.social
    Sep 11, 2026, 1:42 AM

    @SteveBellovin @heidilifeldman I think it's entirely possible that the court will let the injunction stand on the grounds that it's too late to make changes this year. If they do that, it won't signal much about how they'll eventually rule.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Matt Blazemattblaze@federate.social
    Sep 11, 2026, 1:46 AM

    @SteveBellovin @heidilifeldman Not if they uphold the stay on the grounds that it's too late to make changes to the 2026 election (a narrow and strong argument). That won't tell us much about how they'll eventually rule.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0