{"id":6741,"date":"2026-08-24T23:08:12","date_gmt":"2026-08-24T23:08:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/propertyrelocationusa.com\/?p=6741"},"modified":"2026-08-24T23:08:12","modified_gmt":"2026-08-24T23:08:12","slug":"experts-sound-alarm-after-supreme-court-hands-trump-sweeping-seizure-of-election-power","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/propertyrelocationusa.com\/?p=6741","title":{"rendered":"Experts sound alarm after Supreme Court hands Trump ‘sweeping seizure of election power’"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Legal experts raised chilling questions about the Supreme Court’s latest ruling, which gave President Donald Trump’s administration a temporary win in its crusade to restrict mail-in ballots. <\/p>\n

Read more \u2018Reeks of pay-to-play\u2019: Legal expert horrified by Trump strong-arming his own DOJ<\/a><\/p>\n

On Monday, the court lifted a lower court’s injunction that prevented Trump’s mail-in ballot executive order from being implemented. The order required the Postal Service to list voters who use mail-in ballots and told the Department of Homeland Security to create its own voter roll. The order is part of Trump’s long-standing attacks against mail-in voting, which he has described as “fraud” despite having voted by mail in multiple recent Florida elections. <\/p>\n

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, and Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola University, raised chilling questions about the ruling on CNN’s “The Lead.” <\/p>\n

Becker argued that the order will be impossible to implement ahead of the midterms. Even so, it could still affect the election’s outcome.<\/p>\n

“There’s no way to implement<\/span> this,” Becker said. “This would be a sweeping<\/span> seizure of election power from<\/span> the states. Under any<\/span> circumstances. It would be hard<\/span> to do this with two or four years of<\/span> advance notice. It is impossible<\/span> to do that with about 70 days of<\/span> advance notice.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more Trump\u2019s pardon czar warns of \u2018scammers\u2019 \u2014 and points at an RFK Jr. ally<\/a><\/p>\n

Levinson argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling left a lot undecided, but it also raised a few questions that remain open. <\/span><\/p>\n

“It’s very typical<\/span> in the sense that a lot of times<\/span> the fighting over executive<\/span> orders is initially all<\/span> based on these procedural<\/span> matters that we’re talking about<\/span> right now,” she said. “Who has standing to<\/span> sue? Can you bring the case? Do<\/span> you have to wait for something<\/span> to bring the case? And then<\/span> later you get to the merits when<\/span> it comes to the harms.”<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

“It’s very unlikely that any rules will change prior to voting in November, and so when it comes to is this an emergency circumstance for the states, I think the answer at this point is ‘no’ because they won’t be asked to change anything or forced to change anything,” Levinson said. “I suspect … the question becomes what to do next? And this is litigation that will absolutely continue. This is not the end of the case. Not by a long shot.”<\/p>\n

Read more Blistering dissent warns Supreme Court just handed Trump a \u2018chaos\u2019 plan<\/a><\/p>\n