‘Blatantly corrupt’: Critics snap after Supreme Court hands Trump mail-vote win

Critics erupted Monday after the Supreme Court cleared the way for President Donald Trump to move forward with an executive order restricting mail-in voting ahead of the midterm elections.

“This court is blatantly corrupt. It’s honestly laughable,” political scientist and author Conor J. Kelly wrote on X minutes after the ruling’s release.

The unsigned order handed Trump at least a provisional victory after Democratic officials in 23 states and Washington, D.C., sued to block his directive. The court’s three liberal justices dissented.

“This is actual election interference,” political commentator Brian Krassenstein wrote. “I was never a fan of expanding the Supreme Court, but clearly it’s needed.”

NBC News senior Supreme Court reporter Lawrence Hurley cautioned that the decision did not resolve whether Trump’s plan is legal.

The court “hands a provisional win to Trump over his effort to exert control over mail-in ballots,” Hurley told his followers, but added that “questions remain about whether the underlying proposal is lawful, as majority concedes. Plus a nationwide injunction in a different case remains in effect, for now.”

David Badash, founder and editor of The New Civil Rights Movement, called the decision “highly questionable," while liberal commentator Jeff Tiedrich mocked the court’s conservative majority.

“Can’t wait for there to be a Democratic president so the Supreme Court can start saying no again,” he wrote.

"It’s not a Supreme Court anymore—it’s the Institute for the Advancement of Christofascism," Seth Abramson, a retired journalism professor and former prosecutor, said in a social media post. "Don’t listen to these normopath lawyers insisting precedents still hold water with these six religious zealots; they don’t. They don’t even follow the irreparable harm rule in equity cases."

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig, meanwhile, said the order was “definitely a big win” for the Trump administration.