NO!! A JUDGE DID *NOT* JUST GIVE THE GREEN LIGHT FOR TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER TRYING TO RESTRICT MAIL-IN VOTING!!
By Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. – giving you the facts and truth about what is going on with this administration and the law
If you haven’t already, you are almost certainly going to hear various reports that a judge in the District Court in DC “declined to block Trump’s executive order (EO) regarding voting by mail.
This makes it sound like the EO can move forward with legal blessing.
THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED!
What *actually* happened was that the judge determined that the issue was *not ripe* yet. And also, and relatedly, as a result, the Plaintiffs did not have standing.
Standing requires that you *have already been injured*. Courts can’t decide things based on what *might* happen in the future.
Ripeness means that there needs to be an actual *current* controversy; the Court isn’t allowed to weigh in on something that is speculative.
So, with that in mind, here is what the Court *actually* said:
“Plaintiffs have failed to show that they are likely to have Article III standing or that they will suffer imminent and irreparable harm absent an injunction. The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws. Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.”
While we may not like it, this is actually the correct outcome, because the Plaintiffs haven’t been injured, nobody has even taken action that would create an imminent injury (for example the Post Office changing policy based on the EO), there is basically no *current legally addressable let alone justiciable* issue.
Remember, an Executive order is exactly like a memo from any other CEO telling his employees what to do. It is *not* law, it does *not* have the force of law. It’s Trump telling his ’employees’ to take some action. In this case, unless and until they take that action, there is nothing that the Court can do.
That said, you can’t blame the Plaintiffs for trying, and in fact this same matter is being heard in two different lawsuits in Massachusetts, and you ever know but that maybe those plaintiffs will find a novel hook on which the judges in those cases might hang an injunction.
Notes from the Front members: I have the Court’s order for you but I’m locked out of my Substack account for the moment (too any password reset requests).
If you’re not a Notes from the Front member and want to support my reporting, for just $5 a month you can stop relying on this platform’s algorithms to show you my updates *and* get the included documents! *And* help keep me in that sweet elixer of productivity, coffee! :~) Join here:
https://notesfromthefront.fyi
New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here’s how:
P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word “memo”. It will show me that my efforts aren’t in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about memos! ;~)
Source