Trump lashes out at US Supreme Court justices after ballot ruling - Reuters

President Donald Trump on September 15 used his Truth Social platform to denounce the U.S. Supreme Court after the justices denied his request to lift a lower‑court order that blocks his administration’s plan to tighten mail‑in voting rules ahead of the November midterm elections. In his post, Trump described the decision as “horrible,” “highly political” and said that certain justices were “petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats,” accusing the Court of being “cowed” by the Democratic Party.

The disputed policy stems from an executive order signed by Trump in March, which sought to impose new restrictions on mail‑in ballots on the premise—made without supporting evidence—that the system was vulnerable to fraud. The order quickly faced multiple lawsuits filed by Democratic‑led states that argued, under the Constitution, election administration is a power reserved to the states rather than the federal government.

The Supreme Court, which currently has a 6‑3 conservative majority and includes three justices appointed by Trump, issued a 6‑3 ruling that left the lower‑court injunction in place. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged that the administration’s rule might be lawful in the long term but emphasized that state and local election officials did not have sufficient time to implement it before the upcoming elections. Only two of the six conservative justices on the panel filed a dissenting opinion.

Trump’s response framed the Court’s decision as a setback for Republicans and an example of the “Radical Left” influencing the judiciary. He called the ruling a “big loss for Republicans,” claimed the Court was “bully[ed] and cajol[ed]” by Democrats, and warned that the decision would be remembered as one of the most damaging in the nation’s history. The president also reiterated his claim that the mail‑ballot system is a “laughing stock,” despite evidence that the system is secure and experiences no significant fraud.

Legal analysts note that the Court’s ruling was based on procedural timing rather than a definitive judgment on the merits of the mail‑in voting restrictions. The decision leaves the existing legal challenges pending and maintains the status quo for mail‑in voting procedures as the 2024 midterm elections approach.