be affected...talk about 'Desperation'...DJT knows what awaits him if he allows a free and fair election to take place this November....

Here are some excerpts from the NYT article....
-----------------
The majority said the states that challenged the president’s order could not demonstrate that they were sufficiently harmed by voting rules that had not yet taken effect. The justices cautioned that their order was preliminary and not a final decision about whether the administration’s order “will necessarily be lawful” once the plans are complete. “On that score, time will tell,” the majority said in the 10-page, unsigned order.

“The right to vote is sacred, and no administration should be allowed to put that right in jeopardy by making it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballots,” she said in a statement. “This fight is far from over. We are exploring our legal options.”

In a social media post, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said the court’s decision did not deal with the substance of Mr. Trump’s executive order, asserting that the ruling “does not mean his illegal attempt to restrict mail-in voting will go forward.”

“Donald Trump does not run elections here in Pennsylvania — or in any state,” he added. “We’ll see the Trump Administration in court.”The legal team representing voting rights organizations in the separate challenge to the president’s executive order said in a statement that they were “disappointed by this interim ruling by the Supreme Court,” but would press on with their efforts to block the order.

The team, which includes the American Civil Liberties Union, called the president’s order an “attempt to seize control of election rules from the states and Congress” that was “clearly unconstitutional and unlawful.” They added that they would “continue to vigorously pursue all available avenues to challenge this executive order.”

In late June, Judge Indira Talwani, a Federal District Court judge in Massachusetts, temporarily blocked the president’s order, finding that it violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. She also determined that Congress had not delegated authority to the Postal Service to determine which voters should receive mail ballots, and that the executive order did not allow enough time before November for the Postal Service to follow the legally required process for agencies when they adopt new rules.

Judge Talwani issued a separate broader ruling in a related case this month, blocking any enforcement of the executive order for the 2026 midterms. She again emphasized that the Constitution does not grant authority over elections to the executive branch. She also noted that, contrary to Mr. Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud, the government had not provided “evidentiary support of illegal or fraudulent absentee voting.”

A federal appeals court earlier upheld Judge Talwani’s temporary block. At that point, Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency application asking the justices to step in. Several Republican state attorneys general filed a separate, parallel request.

In a brief to the court, the Democratic state attorneys general wrote that the executive order “would allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program that would, among other things, give the U.S. Postal Service far-reaching new powers and responsibilities.”
They also argued that allowing the order to be implemented would mean a chaotic rollout not long before states begin to send out absentee ballots.

And they wrote that voters could be confused and disenfranchised, given that the federal government was likely to make errors in compiling citizen lists and that valid voters would have little time to challenge the government’s determinations.
-----------------


Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/24/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-mail-ballots.html