A federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama took a “satisfying slap” at the Supreme Court over its refusal to block the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict mail-in voting, ex-U.S. attorney Joyce Vance flagged on Friday.
On Monday, the Supreme Court paused an injunction by a federal judge that prohibited the federal government from carrying out President Donald Trump’s executive order designed to restrict mail-in voting, allowing it to move forward for the time being.
As explained by Vance, the Supreme Court’s decision was “purely procedural,” and did not weigh in on the merits of the lawsuits seeking to block Trump’s executive order. As argued by the court, the cases weren’t “ripe” yet for a decision to be issued.
Nevertheless, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani on Thursday granted a 14-day temporary restraining order on the rollout of Trump’s executive order. And, while it’s “likely” to be “swiftly appealed,” Talwani’s order included a subtle jab at what Vance called the Supreme Court’s “perplexing omission” that appeared to undercut its own argument: that the U.S. Postal Service had already announced its “Final Rule” on adopting Trump’s executive order.
“The Supreme Court gave no indication that it was aware of the Final Rule when the Order was issued,” Talwani wrote. “Defendants nonetheless insist, without citation, that ‘publication of a Final Rule’ was ‘already known to the Supreme Court’ at the time of the Court’s Order.”
Talwani also flagged what Vance characterized as the Supreme Court’s selective outrage regarding abiding by court orders.
“Judge Talwani also took a gentle, but satisfying slap at the Court, pointing out that the Trump administration isn’t exactly playing by the rules when it comes to court orders,” Vance wrote in an analysis published Friday on her Substack.
With the Supreme Court now likely to make a decision on Talwani’s temporary restraining order, Vance outlined the potential outcomes.
“Will the Supreme Court permit the administration to throw the upcoming elections into confusion and disenfranchise broad swaths of voters? John Roberts probably doesn’t want that to be his legacy; it’s already tarnished enough,” Vance wrote.
“The easy out for the Court will be blocking the measure for the 2026 elections, but allowing it to move forward for 2028. This will not be over any time soon.”