Appeals Court Rejects 'Likely Unlawful' Trump Push to Undermine Mail-In Voting as Supreme Court Looms A federal court on Thursday rejected the Trump administration's request to reinstate an executive order that placed restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of the election. The First Circuit Court of Appeals found that the order likely violates the U.S. Constitution's elections clause and could prevent millions of Americans from voting. The court criticized the onerous new rules imposed on states, which include printing specific barcodes and obtaining USPS approval for envelopes. The decision keeps in place an earlier injunction against the order, which was praised by civil rights groups. The case is expected to move to the Supreme Court. Appeals Court Rejects 'Likely Unlawful' Trump Push to Undermine Mail-In Voting as Supreme Court Looms The First Circuit Court of Appeals found implementing Trump's order would cause 'chaos and widespread disenfranchisement... between now and November 3. ' A federal court on Thursday rejected the Trump administration's request to reinstate an executive order that placed restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of the that President Donald Trump's mail-in voting executive order likely violates the US Constitution's elections clause, which grants states the rights to oversee their own elections, subject to oversight from the The court also found that the regulations proposed by the order 'could prevent millions of Americans from obtaining and returning their ballots' in the coming election.The ruling noted that the Trump executive order places a number of onerous restrictions on mail-in voting, such as requiring states to print 'a voter-specific Intelligent Mail barcode ('IMb')' on all outgoing ballots as a precondition for their delivery by the Additionally, the court wrote, the order would compel states 'to obtain USPS approval for new ballot-envelope designs; to purchase new envelopes to replace those already ordered; to assure that there are technological systems in place adequate to generate IMbs; and to upload voter-specific information to a USPS online portal that is still not operational.' The court said these restrictions are so severe that they validate an earlier ruling from a federal district court, which found that implementing Trump's executive order would lead to 'chaos and widespread disenfranchisement... between now and November 3. ' Among other things, the court found these Trump-ordered rules would make it 'impossible for some states to reprint compliant envelopes,' while also creating a 'herculean task' of 'scanning tens of millions of ballot envelopes and reviewing for a match with information in the presently non-operative portal.' In their ruling, the judges also criticized the Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers, whom it alleged 'have not even seriously challenged' the district court's finding about the chaos the president's executive order would cause. The injunction against Trump's mail-in voting order came as a result of a complaint filed by a number of civil society groups, including the League of Women Voters and the Association of Americans Resident Overseas.'This decision rightly keeps in place an order blocking USPS from enforcing its disruptive and disenfranchising rule through the November election,' they added, 'and preserves the current system, which has worked safely, securely, and reliably for decades. ' The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took the opportunity to taunt the Trump administration for suffering yet another loss in its crusade to clamp down on mail-in voting.'We are pleased the court rejected the government's request to reinstate the president's voting order,' said Dale Ho, the director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. 'The court recognized that the government failed to show that this ill-conceived and unnecessary rule would not cause chaos and massive disenfranchisement. ' Following Thursday's ruling, the DOJ is expected to ask the Supreme Court to reinstate the president's voting order.With mail-in ballots for the upcoming midterms already being sent out in some states, a ruling from the nation's highest court is expected in the coming days. It's been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project.No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control.Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy.Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces-Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor-the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here's the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there.And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will.We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we