Supreme

• GOP campaign committees are appealing to the Supreme Court after the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit blocked an FCC order regarding TV election ad pricing. • The disputed FCC rule sought to extend mandatory broadcast discounts, typically reserved for candidates, to political parties and joint fundraising committees. • The 4th Circuit ruled that the FCC's order cannot be enforced because it contradicts the explicit language of existing US law.

• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Donald Trump regarding mail-in voting on Monday, though the court stopped short of declaring his specific order legal. • The decision avoids a definitive ruling on the legality of the voting mandates, leaving significant legal ambiguities unresolved. • This lack of clarity matters because it fails to settle the underlying dispute, potentially leading to widespread confusion for voters and election officials.

• The Atlantic reports that conservative Supreme Court justices are increasingly ignoring evidentiary records and factual findings established by lower courts. • Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson highlighted this trend in a dissent, noting that the Court disregarded district court findings regarding the "incredible strain" Trump's orders placed on state officials. • This shift is significant because it undermines "clear-error deference," a procedural rule that prevents reviewing courts from overturning lower court facts unless they are clearly erroneous.

• Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and another "red state" are petitioning the Supreme Court to intervene in an antitrust lawsuit led by California and 11 other "blue states." • The legal battle centers on an attempt by these states to block a $110 billion merger that has already been cleared by the U.S. government and global competition regulators. • Bird argues the case is an example of "politicized antitrust enforcement" and seeks to establish legal limits on how a small group of states can obstruct major corporate mergers.

• Former President Trump issued an executive order aimed at altering mail-in ballot procedures and voter verification ahead of midterm elections. • Key measures include the federal government creating citizenship lists for states, the Justice Department prioritizing investigations into ineligible voting, and the Postal Service implementing tracking barcodes on ballot envelopes. • These changes matter as they seek to increase oversight of voter eligibility and improve the transparency of ballot delivery through the mail.

• The Supreme Court ruled on Monday to allow the Trump administration to proceed with portions of a plan aimed at restricting mail-in voting. • The dispute involves an executive order designed to increase the federal government's authority in determining which voters are eligible to receive specific ballots by mail. • This decision is significant as it could alter how millions of Americans cast and return their ballots for the upcoming November elections.

• The Supreme Court has removed a legal roadblock, facilitating efforts by the Trump administration to implement stricter restrictions on mail-in voting. • Judge Holmes warned that requiring new ballot packet designs is unrealistic, as county election offices already have materials printed and ready for the general election. • Implementing new USPS-mandated envelope designs would cause significant financial strain and logistical disruptions due to limited printing vendors and strict automation requirements.

• A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that the Trump administration violated a previous court order by proceeding with restrictions on mail-in voting. • The decision follows a separate but related Supreme Court ruling issued on Monday, August 24, 2026. • This ruling is significant as it addresses an emergency motion from voting rights groups seeking to protect ballot access ahead of upcoming elections.

• The US Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to lift a Massachusetts judge's injunction against a presidential executive order aimed at restricting mail-in voting. • The ruling supports Donald Trump's ongoing efforts to crack down on mail-in ballots, despite the president having utilized the method himself. • This decision creates potential uncertainty and legal hurdles for voters heading into the midterm elections this November.

• The Supreme Court issued an order requiring the United States Postal Service (USPS) to initiate a proposed rulemaking process regarding election-related procedures. • The ruling clarifies that the president lacks the legal authority to unilaterally change election laws, countering various misconceptions circulating on the internet. • This decision matters because it reinforces the separation of powers and ensures that changes to election protocols follow established administrative and legal channels.

• The Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding the limits of mail-in voting, sparking concerns over potential voter confusion ahead of the November election. • While the ruling establishes new legal boundaries, some states have vowed to sue to prevent these limits from taking effect before the upcoming vote. • Legal experts and state officials warn that shifting rules this close to an election could disenfranchise voters or lead to administrative errors.

• The Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling on August 24, 2026, regarding mail-in voting, though it stopped short of addressing the constitutionality of a specific executive order from Donald Trump. • Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning that the decision creates a "Kafkaesque nightmare" by injecting unnecessary chaos and uncertainty into the electoral process. • Election law scholar John J. from Quinnipiac University suggests the ruling leaves critical legal questions unanswered, potentially complicating voting procedures for the upcoming midterms.

• The Supreme Court has issued a decision regarding mail-in voting that has sparked widespread questions and confusion. • The ruling remains ambiguous as to whether its mandates will be implemented in time for the upcoming midterm elections. • Political experts suggest it is very unlikely that the decision will be in effect for the midterms, though uncertainty persists.

• The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Trump administration may proceed with implementing mail voting restrictions ahead of the November midterm elections. • The court's decision does not determine whether the executive order is legally lawful, but it removes the immediate barrier to pursuing these changes. • This ruling is significant as it allows the administration to alter mail ballot procedures while states are actively preparing for the upcoming vote.

• The Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is too early for Democratic-run states to challenge a mail-voting order issued by President Donald Trump. • The order mandates specific formatting for mail-in ballot envelopes and requires states to use an electronic system to identify mail voters to the Postal Service. • This decision maintains the status quo for now but could force some jurisdictions to completely revise their ballot processes, potentially leading to "chaos" before the November election.

• The Supreme Court has granted a temporary victory to Donald Trump, allowing the government to proceed with several mail-in voting restrictions. • Key measures include enabling the Department of Homeland Security to compile and share a federal citizenship list with states and allowing the Attorney General to prioritize prosecutions of officials issuing ballots to ineligible voters. • The ruling also permits the U.S. Postal Service to establish specific rulemaking regarding the design of state mail ballots.

• In a 6-3 decision on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled to lift a major procedural block on an executive order issued by President Trump regarding mail-in voting. • The ruling allows parts of the president's changes to the voting process to move forward, removing a significant legal hurdle. • This decision is critical as it sets the stage for a broader constitutional battle over the legality and administration of election laws.

Then Advocate editor-in-chief and writer testified editorial was not part of agenda against Jefferson Davis Hughes IIIA jury on Monday awarded $300,000 to a Louisiana supreme court justice over a 2019 editorial by the state’s largest newspaper in a rare defamation trial involving an elected public official.Jurors in Iberville parish, Louisiana, found that the editorial whose headline included “Jeff Hughes … made a mockery of justice” and was published by the Advocate had defamed state supreme court justice Jefferson Davis Hughes III. The $300,000 in damages that the jury awarded Hughes were nonetheless significantly less than the $10m he sought for what he described as injury to his reputation and emotional distress. Continue reading...

US president has been obsessed with restricting the ability to vote by mail, despite using it himself. Plus why we are still so fascinated with Meg from the White StripesGood morning. The US supreme court has sided with Donald Trump in his effort to crack down on mail-in voting, though it is unclear whether or not his administration will be able to take action before the midterm elections in November. The court’s justices voted 6-3 along ideological lines to lift an injunction that a judge in Massachusetts had placed in June on an executive order issued by the president. But a second injunction remains in place, and the ruling leaves room for legal challenges.Trump has repeatedly likened voting by mail to cheating, despite his own use of it and overwhelming evidence that the system is secure. In March he ordered the government to create a “state citizenship list” of eligible voters, requiring that mail-in ballots only be delivered to people on that list. He also directed the justice department to prioritise investigations and prosecutions of state and local election officials who issue ballots to people deemed ineligible to vote in federal elections.What did the dissenting judges say? In a blistering dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections”.How have rights organisations reacted? The president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Derrick Johnson, said: “Let this ruling be a reminder that democracy is never, ever guaranteed. We have to fight for it, we have to fight to keep it and we have to protect the rights we do have within it … they are trying to do everything they possibly can to make it difficult for you to vote.”How has Canada reacted? The country’s prime minister, Mark Carney, told reporters that Trump’s announcement was largely expected. “It’s not a surprise for us that the US would take some form of reprisal to our response to their unjustified tariff,” he said. Carney has vowed to match the American tariffs “dollar for dollar”, and said Canada could not accept any proposed trade deal that would weaken French language protections. Continue reading...

• The libertarian Goldwater Institute has filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court advocating for the repeal of a 19th-century law that bans home distilling. • In a separate action, the organization urged the FTC to investigate whether a mass book-purge unfairly restricted public and competitor access to literary materials for AI development. • These efforts highlight the Institute's broader push against government restrictions on personal liberties and the fair accessibility of data for emerging technologies.

Justices’ ruling comes after lower courts had blocked president’s election order ahead of November midtermsDonald Trump’s administration can proceed with a nationwide crackdown on mail-in voting, the US supreme court has ruled, approving its emergency appeal.It remains unclear, however, how his administration can implement the decision in time for the midterm elections in November, and the ruling leaves room for legal challenges. Continue reading...

• Anita Earls and Sarah Stevens are competing for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court in a high-stakes election. • The candidates hold opposing judicial philosophies, with Earls arguing that the court must enforce constitutional educational rights while Stevens labels Earls an "activist judge." • A key point of contention involves the stability of legal precedents, as Earls argues against overturning rulings within the same case to avoid confusing litigants.

Chief justice signs temporary order to permit work while court considers emergency appeal from administrationThe US supreme court has allowed Donald Trump to continue construction of his controversial White House ballroom for now, temporarily pausing a lower court order that would halt much of the project.Supreme court chief justice John Roberts signed a temporary order on Friday, permitting work to continue while the court considers an emergency appeal from Trump’s administration. Continue reading...

• The Supreme Court has established a High-Powered Committee, led by retired Justice R Subhash Reddy, to investigate violence and police actions during student protests in Delhi last month. • The probe will examine allegations of police excesses, targeted violence, and the harassment or molestation of women protesters. • The panel is tasked with determining whether the police force acted lawfully and used a proportionate level of force during the demonstrations.

• Pakistan's Supreme Court has ruled that former Prime Minister Imran Khan must be moved from prison to a hospital for medical treatment. • The decision follows the submission of medical records to the court indicating that Khan has been suffering from anxiety and palpitations. • This ruling highlights the ongoing legal and health battles facing the former leader while in detention.

National Trust for Historic Preservation filing comes after president made emergency bid for construction to continueA historic preservation group that sued to block construction of Donald Trump’s White House ballroom urged the US supreme court on Tuesday to suspend the project while it considers whether the work can continue.The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed its request less than a week after the Trump administration asked the nation’s highest court to allow the White House to continue construction on its $400m ballroom project during the appeals process. Continue reading...

• Attorney General Todd Blanche stated in a Sunday interview that he may escalate the Trump administration's lawsuits to the Supreme Court to obtain voter rolls from several states. • This move is part of a broader strategy by the second Trump administration to challenge existing voting rights and seek federalized control over election processes. • The legal battle matters as it represents a significant shift in the balance of power between state and federal authorities regarding voter data and election administration.

• The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected former President Donald Trump’s request to reconsider his appeal regarding a $5 million payment to writer E. Jean Carroll. • This decision upholds a previous ruling in a case where Trump was found liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll. • The ruling is significant as it maintains the financial penalties imposed on Trump, despite his ongoing legal efforts to avoid payment.