Oops, SCOTUS Did It Again

SCOTUS strikes again, with yet another unsigned order; this one addressing Donald Trump's executive order that requires states to submit lists of voters, and instructs the USPS to block the delivery of absentee ballots to people in those states that do not comply.

Before we get into the details, it's important to understand what the Supreme Court's order did NOT do. U.S. District Judge for the District of Massachusetts Indira Talwani has imposed a nationwide injunction prohibiting the USPS from implementing Trump's XO, in response to a case brought by the League of Women Voters (LWV). That injunction is still in place and is currently being appealed by twelve Republican states.

The Supreme Court's order addressed an injunction in a separate case, also in front of Talwani, brought by California and other "blue" states challenging the legality of Trump's XO to control and limit mail-in voting. In that case, Talwani had also enjoined the XO but only as to the 23 plaintiff states. It is that injunction, and that injunction only, that the Supreme Court overturned yesterday, on purely procedural grounds.

Talwani's now-dead injunction addressed Sections 2 and 3 of the XO. Section 2 directs DHS to create a nationwide "citizenship" database from state voter rolls and other federal agencies. Section 3 directs the USPS to refuse to deliver mail-in ballots in states that don't provide voter rolls to DHS. On August 21, the USPS issued a "final rule" to implement Section 3, arguably in violation of Talwani's injunction in the LWV case. But in supplementary information published as part of the "final rule," the postal service specifically acknowledges the injunctions in both the California and LWV cases and states that it "will not take actions to implement the rule specifically for the 2026 elections unless and until the government obtains relief from those injunctions." Note the plural "injunctions." So far, Trump has obtained relief from only one injunction in the California case.

Further, as readers may recall, Trump appealed the California case to the First Circuit Court of Appeal and lost there, which is what prompted him to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. The Republicans' appeal of the LWV case has yet to be heard in the appeals court.

Given all this, the basis for the Supreme Court's decision, such as it is, is largely irrelevant. It really shouldn't change anything on the ground at this point. But we're a full-service operation, so we'll report that the Court justified its decision on standing and ripeness grounds. In other words, the Court majority claims that the case was brought too soon, which is laughable given the USPS' issuance of what it calls a "final rule" with an effective date of August 21. The Court majority once again hands Trump a victory without actually ruling on whether anything he's doing is legal. And it most certainly is not.

Note, incidentally, that because the order is unsigned, it's not entirely clear which justices were in the majority. However, Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined together in a blistering dissent. Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote her own, even more blistering, dissent in which she decreed that the Trump XO "needlessly injects chaos" into the election process, and that yesterday's SCOTUS ruling "also lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges." In other words, it wasn't the three liberals in the majority. So, that leaves at least five of the six conservatives, and possibly all six. Some outlets are reporting it was 6-3, but we can find no support for that assertion. Again, since it is unsigned, it's not clear who was in the majority.

To add another wrinkle here, everyone seems to have forgotten about the injunction prohibiting DHS from expanding the SAVE database to include state voter rolls and private information from other federal agencies. It doesn't appear that DHS has appealed that ruling and, instead, has complied with the court's order. So, it's unclear how the USPS can implement this rule when there is no database for states to coordinate with, or for the postal service to check mail-in ballots against.

Meanwhile, also keep an eye on the NAACP's case against the USPS, in which U.S. District Judge for D.C. Emmet Sullivan also enjoined Section 3 of the XO. That injunction was stayed pending appeal in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and that appeal is ongoing. And there are other suits coming, possibly as early as today. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) promised that would be the case after yesterday's SCOTUS news broke.

Oh, and there are just 74 days left before Election Day and ballots are being prepared as we speak. And early voting by mail will be underway in four states (Minnesota, South Dakota, Vermont and Virginia) by September 19 (a little over 3 weeks from now) and in a fifth state (Illinois) by September 24. By October 7, another nine states will have joined the list. The XO actually applies to the delivery of absentee ballots to recipients, not the delivery of the completed absentee ballots back to the states. Usually, delivery of absentee ballots begins a week before the early-submission deadline. That means that ballots, at least in some states, will be in the mail in just a couple of weeks. So, even if the Trump administration were to triumph on all legal fronts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, by the end of this week (a timeline that is very, very, very unlikely), there just isn't time to implement a major change in USPS procedures prior to this year's midterms.

Finally, for amusement's sake, let's also talk about the possibility of malicious compliance. The XO says that states have to submit lists of voters. It does not say those lists have to be... electronic. Imagine, say, California protecting its voters' access to absentee ballots by delivering a printout, on paper, of the state's voter rolls. If the Golden State listed 50 people per page (and that would be a lot, given all the info demanded by Trump), that would be about 500,000 pages. If the White House/USPS can't make use of that information in a timely manner, or at all, that's not California's problem, since it would be in compliance.

The bottom line is that Talwani's nationwide injunction is still in place and the USPS has stated that it will not implement any new rules "unless and until" relief is obtained from that injunction. It is certainly possible that, once all the dust settles, Trump will get his way here. The extent to which at least five right-wing Supremes bent themselves into pretzels yesterday to sustain Trump, in even a small way, is not promising. But that dust won't settle before Election Day 2026, and is only a potential issue for Election Day 2028. (L & Z)

Is Canada Trade War a Cause for... Concern?

The trade war between Canada and the United States, which we wrote about yesterday, is ramping up. Yesterday, Donald Trump announced 50% tariffs he plans to impose on Canadian cars and steel. That follows a 50% tariff on many other goods that has already gone into effect. Meanwhile, Canadian PM Mark Carney said Canada would retaliate dollar-for-dollar, and that he will announce his plan for doing so sometime today.

The White House is aggressively trying to spin all of this as no big deal. For example, U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer went on CNBC yesterday to decree:

I know that Canadians use histrionics like "trade war" and all these kinds of terms. We don't do that. I mean, the United States, again, we're set on our trade policy. The Canadians asked to come and negotiate with us a month ago, so of course if people ask, we do. So we don't have any issue proceeding with our trade policy as planned, and I think the market understands that. I think the market knows that at the end of the day, this is 5% of imports from Canada. It's 0.06% of our overall consumption in this economy. So there's no possible way it can really affect U.S. well-being, right?

As a purely factual matter, the Trump administration uses histrionics all the time, including the phrase "trade war." As to the impact of the Canadian tariffs, Greer is either being stupid or disingenuous (probably the latter). As a U.S. trade representative, he either knows, or should know, that retaliatory tariffs are almost always highly targeted, so as to affect a particular place, or group, or industry. For example, tens of thousands of Mainers get their power from New Brunswick. Canada could cut that off, which wouldn't affect folks in California much, but which would certainly be a real problem for a lot of folks in Maine.

There's plenty of evidence that the administration is peddling a bill of goods, and there's even evidence the administration knows it's peddling a bill of goods. J.D. Vance, for example, has been dispatched to Maine to try to shore up the Republican vote there, particularly in the critical ME-02. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), meanwhile, is hopping mad about the trade war, which is certainly not going to help her reelection chances. She issued a statement criticizing the breakdown of talks between Canada and the U.S., and then yesterday told reporters that "imposing new tariffs on Canada is a mistake."

Collins is not the only politician who is in a tight election race right now, and who spoke out against the trade war yesterday. Also on board the anti-trade-war train is Oklahoma Republican gubernatorial candidate Gentner Drummond, whose runoff election is taking place today. In an interview, Drummond told NewsNation that "I think Oklahoma and I are supportive of President Trump and many of his policies. I do think the majority of Oklahomans would agree that the tariffs are too far."

Note that Drummond is not opposed to all tariffs. At nearly the same time that Trump declared (trade) war on Canada, he also announced that he was dropping tariffs on ground beef, in an attempt to lower Americans' grocery bills. Oklahoma is a state that produces a lot of beef, and so Drummond most certainly has a beef with Trump over this decision. In other words, the would-be governor wants high tariffs on beef (Canadian or otherwise) but low tariffs on pretty much everything else. A number of other Republican politicians are also upset about the reduced tariffs on beef. That includes Sens. Deb Fischer (NE), Chuck Grassley (IA), Jerry Moran (KS), Pete Ricketts (NE) and Mike Rounds (SD), all of whom criticized Trump over the decision. Nebraska produces more beef than any other U.S. state, Kansas is second, Iowa is tenth, South Dakota is twelfth and Oklahoma is sixteenth. Probably just a coincidence that those states' senators happen to be the angry ones.

The upshot is that, already facing serious headwinds, Trump is creating another potential anchor around his party's neck. The tariffs Canada announces today are most likely to affect states that border Canada. Among those, Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota and Montana have key Senate elections this year, while there are key gubernatorial elections in the same states, except swapping out Montana and swapping in Wisconsin. As to the low-tariff beef, we'll point out that Nebraska has a critical Senate election this year, and so too does #3 beef producer Texas.

The newest wave of Trump tariffs on Canada, the ones he announced yesterday, are not set to kick in until January 1. So, that leaves potential room for negotiation. However, the White House is plenty steamed right now, and so are the Canadians. To speak to the latter part of that, we thought we'd share this letter we got from reader B.S. in Ottawa, ON, Canada:

Thought I'd write in with an update from north of the border.

Donald Trump's previous declaration of a trade war on Canada, combined with 51st state rhetoric, caused significant anger up here. By the middle of this year, the anger had somewhat faded, though many Canadians have avoided, and continue to avoid, usual trips and holidays to America. Most people eschewed American brands to some extent. Some 60,000 Canadians signed a petition to urge the government to recall Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, who has done his best MAGA duty to alienate and anger the people he is supposed to liaise with.

Still, when Justin Trudeau left office and was replaced by Mark Carney, there was an understanding that Carney had some leeway to try to appease Trump. Carney did so, occasionally by sacrificing laws such as the Digital Services Tax; occasionally by ramping up military spending or similarly giving in to various American demands. Regardless, our trade situation and relationship have continued to decline. "Governor" Carney cracks started appearing on MAGA's favorite nine-figure-losing social media platform, the President also derided Canada's ban of American alcohol (forgetting this was done in retaliation for his first round of illegal tariffs), and his whining about Canada not helping him in the war in Iran has shot up even though nobody was asked.

When Trump declined to renew CUSMA, the deal his administration negotiated 8 years ago, the writing was on the wall. We negotiated in good faith, despite all the signs otherwise. The late demands that Trump's team added to the trade negotiations are not only non-starters for Canada, but would be for any sovereign nation. Confirmed by Carney and other members of the negotiating team are the following items:

1. Canada's ability to seek trade deals with other nations was to be restricted. Some sources have claimed that the U.S. wanted Canada to align with American international tariffs.
   
   
2. French language requirements to be weakened or scrapped, which would be constitutionally impossible and would spark a Quebec referendum.
   
   
3. Canadian content rules to be removed for streamers, denying Canadian artists and creators valuable sources of income.
   
   
4. Weird exclusions to tariff reductions on automobiles, designed to kill Canadian factories and force jobs back to the U.S.

Once again, Canadians are rallying behind the Prime Minister; most premiers are on the record as supporting the decision to walk away, and Canadians have reacted by booing the American anthem at a soccer game. The boos had mostly died away by the end of the most recent hockey season. My guess is that they will be back soon, louder, and won't go away so easily. Boycotts are back on and in force (r/BuyCanadian has lots of resources for those interested), and Canadians who were tentatively looking at exploring American goods or vacation options are now pulling back faster. Twice bitten, thrice shy, I suppose.

I don't know what Trump is playing at, aside from the usual suspects of distracting from the Epstein files, from his failed war in Iran, from gas prices, from food inflation. There's no chance he wins this trade war. Canada's used the 18-month reprieve to increase our exports to non-American markets, and we have generated jobs at a faster rate than the U.S. While many jobs will be impacted by these tariffs, Canadians are resolute and willing to undergo suffering at a rate Americans are not. $4/gallon gas might undo Trump at the midterms, and we're willing to go a lot farther.

After all, he's only around for 2.5 more years... or less.

Thanks, B.S.! Sorry our president is so full of, well... your initials. We are soon going to learn exactly how much Trump cares about winning these midterm elections. It looks more and more like he cares less about that than he does about: (1) being "right," (2) getting vengeance against those who have "wronged" him, and (3) using today's crisis-du-jour to distract from yesterday's crisis-du-jour. (Z)

Major Miscalculation by Minority Leader

We assume that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) was either trying to lay some preliminary groundwork for his potential election to the Speakership next year, or else he was indulging the Joe-Manchin-like belief that voters really, really want bipartisanship, or maybe both. In any event, Jeffries has been meeting privately with First Son-in-Law Jared Kushner, to discuss "areas of common ground."

We could have sworn that Kushner said he was not going to be a part of his father-in-law's second administration. Perhaps we were misinformed. In any event, once the news of the under-the-radar meetings leaked, many Democrats were not pleased, to say the least. There are numerous ways we could illustrate this, but how about a comment from reader D.E. in Lancaster, PA?

Regarding Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries secretly meeting with Son-in-law Jared Kushner, I just have this to say: If Jeffries found any common ground with Kushner, then he doesn't need to be the next Democratic Speaker of the House. Stop appeasing the Nazis. Jeffries, you do realize that after your little clandestine meeting, Jared scurried back to Daddy to tell him everything, giving the Trump regime almost half a year to come up with every way to oppose us? Or are you obtuse enough you did not realize that? Stop trying to do politics the old way. The fascists threw out the book, but you keep pretending that nothing has changed. Wake up and smell the electorate.

D.E., you've really gotta stop holding back, and have to start writing what you really think.

This was a pretty bad, unforced error by Jeffries, and he really is being excoriated widely, both by progressives and by more centrist Democrats. Heck, even James Carville blasted the Minority Leader, and Carville is about as establishment as it gets. What the base wants right now is pushback, and with it (eventually) change, and collaborating with Team Trump is not in line with those goals. It makes it worse that it's Kushner; there aren't too many people in the administration who are more toxic to Democrats than he is.

Yesterday, clearly realizing that he'd stepped in it, Jeffries posted a 3-minute video to eX-Twitter in which he tried to do damage control, accompanied by the caption "No one from the Trump Cartel is getting a pass." He was wearing a green shirt and a green New York Yankees cap, incidentally; we did not realize that St. Patrick's Day had been moved to August.

Maybe this, too, shall pass. That said, if there is one thing Jeffries could have done to put his speakership hopes in danger, this is pretty much it. Meanwhile, every Democrat is going to take note of the response here, and isn't going to touch a Republican with a 10-foot-pole while Trump remains in office. So, if you like investigations and obstruction, then Democratic control of at least one chamber of Congress is going to be manna from heaven. If you would like to see things get done, you'll probably have to check back circa January 3, 2029. (Z)

Hegseth for President

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has been spending a fair bit of time in Iowa recently, ostensibly to campaign for Republicans running for reelection, such as Rep. Zach Nunn. Of course, anyone reading this site knows that if a person keeps traveling to Iowa to "support" other candidates' campaigns (particularly if the person somehow doesn't find time to visit non-early-primary states), it's a sign of a budding presidential campaign. And reporters with sources inside the Pentagon have confirmed that Hegseth is pondering the idea.

This certainly tracks, since Hegseth might well have the second-biggest ego in Washington, DC—which is really saying something. That said, if he really wants to take a shot at it, he'll have to play his cards very, very close to the vest. Sitting secretaries of defense do not generally run for president, because that blurs the line between military power and civilian power a bit too much for many voters. More importantly, from Hegseth's perspective, is that you don't make a move in MAGA world without permission from the King of MAGA. Right now, Donald Trump is flogging either J.D. Vance and/or Secretary of State Marco Rubio as his preferred 2028 candidate, depending on his whims at any particular moment. If Hegseth "runs" without permission, too obviously and too early, he could not only cause Trump to dis-endorse his campaign, he could also end up fired from his current job.

MediaMatters, which follows this particular subject pretty closely, published a piece headlined: "Take a Pete Hegseth presidential bid seriously." Their argument in brief is that, as a former right-wing media personality, he is much more attuned to what they call "the right-wing media's id" than is his competition:

Hegseth, a bombastic former Fox News weekend host who spent years speaking directly to the Republican base through that MAGA propaganda network, may be uniquely attuned to the right's attention economy. He could become the presidential candidate of the right-wing media's id, running a furious culture war campaign fixated on domestic political enemies that checks all the boxes for authoritarian-minded pundits indifferent to traditional policy issues.

The site lists some of the ways in which Hegseth is "right" on the issues, as far as the Foxes and Newsmaxes of the world are concerned, including that he is anti-Muslim, anti-DEI, anti-press, anti-immigrant and pro-Christian nationalism.

We agree with MediaMatters' assessment, though our reasoning is a shade bit different. The Republican field is going to be very crowded in 2028, and a candidate who has a clear "brand" and a clear base is going to have an advantage. We kinda know what Vance's brand is (hillbilly-turned-populist), but we don't know what his base is, other than Peter Thiel. We don't know what Rubio's brand is or what his base is, other than Cuban voters in Florida. But Hegseth is the absolute embodiment of "bro" culture and of toxic masculinity, and those are big selling points for a big chunk of the current Republican base.

Also, keep in mind that the GOP, unlike the Democrats, tends to prefer winner-take-all primaries. So, if a candidate can attract 25%, maybe 30% of the primary vote early on, that is enough to build a huge lead. In fact, that's basically what Donald Trump did in 2016. He wasn't winning majorities in the early primaries, but he WAS winning pluralities, and that's all it takes on that side of the contest. And as much as Trump cares about anointing a successor, he cares even more about betting on the winning horse. So, if Hegseth somehow catches fire, it would not be out of character for Trump to endorse him and behave as if Hegseth is the guy he wanted all along.

It's a long time until 2028, and there are a lot of wildcards here, but it's a possibility at least worth keeping an eye on (if, for no other reason, because presidential ambitions will drive Hegseth's behavior, and his search for new stunts to pull, in his current job). And if Hegseth does somehow get the nod, the Republicans will be set up for a disaster of potentially epic proportions. A fanatical vote counts just as much as a blasé one, and these candidates that have a base of hardcore support, but turn everyone else off, tend to do very poorly in presidential elections. Think William Jennings Bryan, Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, etc.

If Hegseth actually gets the Republican nomination, we might possibly have a very interesting matchup that is part campaign and part personal vendetta. One of the people Hegseth has been bugging a lot is Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ). Kelly is a highly decorated naval aviator and astronaut who represents a key swing state in the Senate. He is also loudly anti-Hegseth and anti-Trump. If he runs for president, he has a realistic chance of getting the Democratic nomination. Democrats want a fighter and he has been a fighter his entire adult life. In a Kelly-Hegseth battle, boy would the sparks fly. The debates would rival the UFC fight on the White House lawn. (Z)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays)

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger