Weather 
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Trump’s administration to move ahead with implementing key portions of an executive order that seeks to tighten the rules for mail voting ahead of the November midterm elections.
In a 6-3, the high court granted a request for emergency relief sought by the Trump administration late last month in a case involving 23 Democratic-led states. The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to lift a lower court’s injunction that stopped agencies from carrying out parts of Mr. Trump’s directive, which involves the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Postal Service, in those states and the District of Columbia.
The move from the high court clears the way for the Department of Homeland Security to move forward with creating lists of residents in each state who are eligible to vote.
In a separate case involving voting-rights groups, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued an order earlier this month that prevents the Trump administration from implementing the executive order’s provisions that direct the Postal Service to develop new procedures for mail ballots for the upcoming elections.
The emergency appeal before the Supreme Court, meanwhile, arose after Talwani sided with the group of states that challenged Mr. Trump’s executive order and ruled the Constitution does not grant the president the authority to order changes to how they administer federal elections.
The Supreme Court’s order does not preclude the states from filing lawsuits that challenge the policies finalized and ultimately put in place by the administration in response to Mr. Trump’s directive. Some states are set to begin sending mail ballots to voters for the upcoming midterms in the coming weeks.
“The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful,” the Supreme Court said in an unsigned decision. “On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.”
