US Supreme Court rejects Trump's plans to restrict mail-in voting for midterms

The Supreme Court's ruling follows a string of defeats the US government has suffered before various courts in recent months. In several proceedings, federal courts have blocked executive orders and initiatives by the administration.

Reactions from Congress

In the proceedings surrounding mail-in voting, several justices sided with the plaintiffs who feared a weakening of postal voting rights. According to sources close to the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is counted among the court's conservative wing, also joined the majority.

Voting rights organizations and Democratic members of the House of Representatives welcomed the decision. They see it as protecting access to the vote for voters who rely on casting their ballots by mail for health, work, or geographic reasons.

The Trump administration announced that it would review the decision. It initially remained unclear whether it would seek new ways to change the mail-in voting rules at the federal level. Observers expect the legal battle to continue in the coming weeks.

Consequences for the midterms

For the upcoming midterm elections, the decision means that existing mail-in voting rules in the individual states will continue to apply. Voters can cast their ballots by mail as before, provided that the respective state laws allow it.

The debate over mail-in voting had already flared up again after the last presidential election. At the time, Republicans repeatedly pointed to possible irregularities in mail-in voting, while Democrats and voting rights groups rejected these accusations. The Supreme Court had not previously commented conclusively on the matter.

Background of the mail-in voting debate

With the current decision, the dispute now shifts back to the political arena for the time being. Both sides are preparing for the campaign cycle, which is considered decisive with regard to the composition of Congress.

The exact vote count of the ruling was not officially released at first. The written opinion was also not yet fully available at the time of the decision.