Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Donald Trump's election interference scheme was just blocked, blocked for at least several months. It will not go into effect between now and the midterm elections. This is a stunning blow for the President of the United States. I gotta tell you what happened tonight because a court order hit my email inbox. It's from Boston, Massachusetts, the District of Massachusetts. The court order was signed by a judge named Judge Talwani. She's a liberal judge. She's a judge that liberal groups often go to, kind of like conservative groups go to conservative judges to try to get a favorable order. Well, tonight she issued what is called a preliminary injunction to block a rule from going into effect that many argued was a complete effort to undermine the upcoming elections. The rule, I'm sure you've heard about it by now, is essentially prevented usps, the Postal Service, from sending out mail in ballots to states that don't provide voter rolls to the federal government. Trump wants these voter rolls. He wants to purge the voter rolls, make it harder for folks to vote. And he says, if you're not going to send us all of the names on your voter rolls, then USPS isn't going to send ballots to your states. You USPS controls the mail system in the United States of America and therefore controls whether ballots go to you. And so when that rule was instituted via executive order, it shocked the country. Never before did a president ever try to do that. Well, it was immediately challenged. And tonight, a judge handed down a preliminary injunction expanding her order blocking this rule from going into effect. Why is it significant? Well, there's not enough time for Trump to try to appeal it. He can go up to the Circuit Court, he can go up to the Supreme Court, but we have less than 90 days between now and Election Day. And at this point, this rule is done dead, at least for now. Make sure to subscribe if you can, like, comment, share, get the word out. We're on the road to a million subscribers, and I need your help and also spread the word, because I think in a lot of ways, this is a positive news story for many. There's so much negativity out there, right? There's so much divisiveness and hatred. Well, I want to talk about an order that may actually save upcoming elections in the United States of America. I'm going to put my lawyer hat on for a second, not just my journalistic hat, because I'm reporting on it, but I'm also going to go through this court order with you. And I think it's important that you see what the court order says so. The court order is issued by Judge Talwani and she writes, On March 31st, President Trump issued Executive Order 14399, ensuring citizenship, verification and integrity in federal elections, ordering, inter alia, that the United States Postal Service to refuse to transmit mail ballots either not compliant with new design and technology requirements and or to individuals who do not appear on lists provided to the usps. Much litigation has ensued in response to this unprecedented directive. Throughout the multiple actions before district courts, courts of appeal in the Supreme Court of the United States, the federal government has declined to defend the constitutionality of the Executive Order's directives. Instead, the government has asked this court and others to postpone judicial review on standing and ripeness grounds, arguing that no party may challenge the Executive Order's constitutionality until the USPS promulgates a final rule. As discussed in its prior decisions and expanded upon below, the Court finds it prudent to review the Executive Order now. Where less than 90 days penned before the midterms and the millions of citizens who rely on mail on voting require clarity as to how or whether they will vote in November as to those elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026, the court preserves the election electoral status quo, grants the plaintiffs renewed motion for preliminary injunction, and joins the USPS implementation of Section 3 of the Executive Order. That's a lot of legalese. Let's take a step back. What does it mean to challenge something based on standing? Standing means that the person suing has suffered an injury, essentially an injury. In fact, here you have League of Women voters saying that they can't properly register folks to vote. They can't. They're mail. They rely on mail in ballots. I mean, there are so many reasons why they have standing. That's one. But the real issue here is an issue called ripeness. Every single lawsuit in the United States of America has to be, quote, ripe, and it can't be moot. Can't be moot, meaning the issue has to be actionable, it can't have already been decided. A moot issue, for example, has to be ripe, ripe for review, which means that the court has to have a cause of action in front of it that it can review. For example, a case isn't ripe. If, for example, I sue my best friend and I say in a year from now, my best friend is going to breach a contract. That's not right. Because how is a court going to determine whether or not the contract has been breached if it's something in the future? Here, the federal government, the Trump administration tried to argue that because the USPS is still kind of formulating this rule, that it's not finalized, that you can't challenge it because it's kind of in the future. And you can't challenge it if you're a voter or if you're an organization like the League of Women Voters until after the rule, until after the rule essentially becomes final. But the court said that's not how it works here because this rule impacts the elections. And we already see what the rule is going to be. The executive order kind of titled that, and we see the outcomes of the executive order. And so I'm going to review it now. The court says, and when evaluating a preliminary injunction, it reviews several. Several kind of points, two of which I want to talk about. The first is the harm. One of the factors in issuing a preliminary injunction is you balance the harms and balance the equities, but specifically the harms, the harms that both sides will face if this rule takes effect here. Plaintiff organizations have demonstrated that they are, number one, nonpartisan organizations dedicated to increasing voter participation. Okay. Through education and assistance. They engage in significant educational efforts and trainings leading up to federal elections. And those activities are currently being disrupted by the executive order. For example, visits to the League of Women Voters educational website increased dramatically in the months prior to the election. The plaintiff is currently unable to update its website to educate voters on mail and voting. Makes sense. Similarly, plaintiff Delta Sigma Theta's mail voting, education and facilitation has been impeded by the executive order. Also makes sense. And then you look at harm to individuals. Plaintiff organizations have demonstrated. Defendants and intervener defendants do not dispute that many of their members rely on and are limited to voting by mail, including members who live in states not covered by the California injunction. See, there was another injunction. This one expands it accordingly. Plaintiff organizations members need to vote by mail. These members have been deprived of their typical sources of assistance and support in navigating their state's widely varying requirements for mail in voting. Okay. Makes sense. And then you balance the equities. You balance the equities. And. Well, the court balanced the equities with respect to the public interest. Defendants have declined to argue that enjoining implementation of the order will jeopardize the integrity of mail in voting. Their record is devoid of any evidentiary support of illegal or fraudulent, fraudulent absentee voting. That makes sense. There is no illegal voting out there. And so what did the court do? The court said that the defendants are officially enjoined. They can't essentially give effect or enforce section 3 of the executive order with respect to the November 3rd midterm elections or any federal election. Now, Donald Trump is going to appeal this. As is right, he can appeal it 100%. But we are so close to the election that it's not going to matter, at least for November. This is going to be a fight all the way up until the 2028 presidential elections, don't get me wrong. But until then, at least for now, this order is going to block implementation of any mail in restrictions on USPS ballots. Spread the Word. Subscribe to Support See you soon. Hey folks, thanks so much for watching. Feel free to add this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or anywhere you watch for the latest breaking news and daily hits throughout the day. Make sure to follow. Subscribe See you soon for more.