The Democratic-led states and voting rights groups suing to block enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order to restrict mail-in voting warned in briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday the policy would have disastrous consequences for the upcoming midterm elections if it is allowed to move forward.

Less than two months before the Nov. 3 elections, at least two states have already begun sending ballots to voters, and officials in several others have voiced serious concerns that complying with the U.S. Postal Service rule this election cycle is impossible, opponents said.

The Democratic attorneys general of 23 states, the District of Columbia and the governor of Pennsylvania told the high court they strongly object to the Trump administration’s request that justices allow the rule to move forward.

“Whatever else may be said of USPS’ new rule, it would wreak havoc on States and their voters if it takes effect at this late point—when some States, including North Carolina and Wisconsin, have already begun to mail out ballots,” they wrote.

Only Democratic state officials have sought to challenge the rule in court, but Wednesday’s brief noted that top elections officials in the Republican-led states of Utah, Florida and Ohio have also warned the rule would cause “catastrophic harms.”

The suit, now at the Supreme Court, was brought by the attorneys general of California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin, along with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

“Allowing USPS’ new rule to take effect would be virtually certain to prevent many millions of Americans from casting mail ballots in this fall’s elections,” opponents wrote.

The record in the Massachusetts federal court that issued the preliminary injunction blocking the rule’s enforcement that the administration is seeking to overturn includes “unrebutted evidence” that “establishes that compliance with USPS’ rule would be impossible ahead of the midterms,” the state officials wrote.

Spokespeople for the White House, Postal Service and U.S. Department of Justice, which is representing the Trump administration in the case, did not respond to messages seeking comment Wednesday.

The case is on what’s known as the court’s emergency docket, and it’s not clear when a decision on whether or not to keep the preliminary injunction in place will be issued.

Voting rights groups echo Dems

A coalition of voting rights groups also filed a response Wednesday, making similar arguments.

The groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the likelihood of disenfranchisement for many of the roughly 50 million voters set to receive ballots from the states challenging the rule.

Even if the mail specifications under the rule could be met in time for the election, the online portal the Postal Service has rushed to develop is not ready, the challengers wrote. 

Several friend-of-the-court briefs also made that argument, including the federal employee whistleblower who reported last week that the portal’s rushed development would lead to numerous errors if used this election. 

As of late last week, states had not yet been given access to the portal, which is supposed to be the mechanism for verifying compliance with the rule, even as some began mailing ballots.

“USPS’s Rule gives states mere weeks to implement sweeping changes to their election systems—even though USPS has not yet established the necessary infrastructure to administer its new requirements,” they wrote. “The Rule would disrupt the administration of mail voting mid-election and disenfranchise eligible voters nationwide, including voters in all-mail states like Colorado and Utah and elderly, rural, and disabled voters who must vote by mail.”

Beyond Postal Service power

In addition to the impossibility of states’ complying with the Postal Service rule, which places new requirements on ballot mail and requires states to transmit voter data to the federal government, less than two months before Election Day, the regulation impedes states’ constitutional authorities and oversteps the executive branch’s powers, the state officials and groups wrote.

The U.S. Constitution specifies that administering elections is a state responsibility, though Congress may pass laws governing certain elements. The executive branch has virtually no role unless specifically delegated by Congress, the rule’s challengers wrote.

And Congress never passed a law to give the Postal Service the kind of power over election mail that the rule claims, they said.

“To the contrary, Congress has exhaustively enumerated the types of materials that USPS can lawfully refuse to deliver,” the state officials wrote. “Ballots are not among them.”

The rule bans postal workers from delivering ballots that do not meet any of the conditions specified in the rule, including pre-approval of envelope designs and lists of eligible voters that the administration plans to check against a citizenship database maintained by the Department of Homeland Security.

Outsiders weigh in

A flurry of 17 friend-of-the-court briefs hit the Supreme Court docket Tuesday and Wednesday. 

None sided with the administration.

The briefs, representing bipartisan former governors, state and local election officials, military voters, the Postal Service workers’ union, good government organizations, Democratic campaign groups and others all said the rule was impossible to comply with at this point in the election cycle.

“The late-breaking USPS Final Rule—which was promulgated mere months before the November 3, 2026 general midterm elections, and which mandates sweeping, costly, and burdensome changes to mail-in voting procedures—would prove disastrous for election officials and election administration,” local officials and the pro-democracy group Center for Election Innovation wrote. “And it would seriously undermine the upcoming elections.”

In another filing, a bipartisan group of current and former local and state election officials said it was impossible to comply with the rule this year. 

Their brief noted that many of their members were Republicans or represented Republican-majority districts and emphasized that they took no position on the rule’s legality. 

But they said implementing it now was infeasible and ran afoul of a Supreme Court principle that changes in election policy should not happen during or close to an election.

“The principle rests on incontestable facts about voters and about the people who run elections: that late changes breed confusion, that confusion keeps eligible voters from voting, and that a chaotic election erodes confidence in the result,” they wrote. They “therefore suggest only this: that the November 3, 2026 general election be conducted under the rules that were in place when the election’s administration began.”

The hotly contested U.S. Postal Service rule restricting mail-in voting usurps Congress’ authority, as well as states’ power to administer elections, more than 250 current and former members of Congress said in a filing to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

All 47 members of the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus, 199 current House Democrats and 15 former House Republicans signed the friend-of-the-court brief opposing President Donald Trump’s policy to add several requirements to mail ballots. 

The U.S. Constitution “is unambiguous” in empowering states to run elections, while Congress can enact laws to oversee elections generally, they argued.

“Congress has passed several laws regulating federal elections—though it has always done so surgically, deliberately leaving the States with considerable room to maneuver,” they wrote.

The executive branch has no role, they said. 

The Trump administration has argued the rule, published last month, requires only “modest” technical specifications for mail ballots and that states transmit lists of eligible voters to receive the ballots. The rule is a targeted measure affecting mail delivery, not elections, the administration says.

But the lawmakers say that argument fails. 

The agency cannot take action related to elections without a congressional directive, they wrote. Congress never wrote a law asking for the requirements included in the USPS rule, they said. 

Executive order

In this case, Trump spurred the Postal Service to write the rule in a March executive order, based on the unsubstantiated premise that vote-by-mail is vulnerable to fraud. 

That shows the rule is meant to address Trump’s concerns about election administration, not mail specifications, the lawmakers said.

“The integrity of our constitutional system depends on each branch keeping to its assigned role,” they wrote. “The Framers set up a two-part system that gave States default authority to regulate federal elections subject to Congress’s authority to override the States. The Framers did not provide the President with any authority to interfere in that system, nor has Congress imbued the Executive Branch with any such authority by statute.”

Spokespeople for the White House, USPS and the Department of Justice, which is representing the Trump administration in the case, did not immediately return messages seeking comment Tuesday.

In a separate brief, the legal advocacy group the Society for the Rule of Law made a similar argument, saying the federal postal law the administration has cited provides only broad language that does not empower the agency to regulate election mail.

“The non-election, boilerplate … provisions on which Applicants rely are not a secret, alternative way for the USPS to bar ballot mail, conditionally or otherwise, on the eve of election day,” the group wrote. “Under the federalism presumption and the major question doctrine, the USPS needed a clear statement of statutory authority.”

Rushed delivery

The rule would require technical elements such as unique barcodes on ballot envelopes. Elections experts say those requirements are unworkable in time for the fall’s midterm elections because states have already designed, printed and — in some cases — begun sending ballots.

The rule would also require states to send to the federal government lists of eligible voters, which would be checked against a Department of Homeland Security database to verify citizenship. 

The rule bans the Postal Service from delivering ballots to registered voters who are not verified through that method.

The online portal that the rule says states should use for this process has still, less than two months until Election Day, not been introduced to states. A whistleblower last week reported the rushed development has led to myriad problems with the tool, which could result in legitimate ballots being rejected.

Opponents, including more than 20 Democratic state officials and voting rights groups that sued to challenge the rule, say it would risk disenfranchisement for the millions of voters, including Trump, who vote by mail.

High court ruling pending

The rule has been the subject of rapidfire legal fighting over the past several weeks, and the Supreme Court is now weighing whether to overturn a Massachusetts federal judge’s order pausing the rule while litigation continues, after the Trump administration filed an appeal over the weekend.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Sunday asked the states and voting rights groups challenging the rule to file their response to the application by Wednesday at 4 p.m. Eastern.

That district court injunction from Judge Indira Talwani, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, held that the rule was likely unconstitutional and unlawful for reasons the members of Congress articulated Tuesday: The Constitution grants states and Congress the power to oversee elections and states would be harmed if they are forced to comply with the regulation before courts can determine its legality.

The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to overturn a lower court and allow it to enforce a U.S. Postal Service rule restricting mail-in voting.

The trial judge, Indira Talwani of the U.S. District of Massachusetts, prejudged the rule before it was final when she issued a temporary restraining order last month and upheld it last week, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. The rule only regulates standards of mail delivery and doesn’t interfere with election administration, Sauer argued.

“Contrary to the claims of the district court and respondents that the Postal Service is trying to federalize the rules for mail-in voting, the Postal Service’s final rule imposes only modest envelope-design and addressee-information requirements for federal-election ballots sent via U.S. Mail,” Sauer said.

Temporary restraining orders are not typically appealable, but Sauer argued that because of the impending midterm election, the court should hear the appeal. The rule carries out an executive order made earlier this year by President Donald Trump.

Election Day is two months from Thursday. One state, North Carolina, is expected to begin mailing ballots Friday.

Morning hearing

The government filed the application just hours after Talwani, whom former President Barack Obama appointed, heard oral arguments on whether to convert her two-week restraining order into a longer preliminary injunction to block the administration from applying the rule during the fast-approaching election.

Over months of litigation, Talwani has communicated disapproval of the rule and the government’s legal arguments and appeared skeptical of USPS’s position Thursday, according to reporters in the courtroom.

The rule would create new standards for the envelopes used to send ballots to people who vote by mail. It would also allow the federal government to verify voters receiving ballots are eligible. 

Democratic state officials and voting rights groups say that is an unconstitutional violation of states’ role in administering elections and goes beyond anything Congress has authorized the agency to pursue.

In addition to constitutional concerns, the rule raises practical ones. Experts in election administration say mandating wholesale changes to mail-in voting this close to an election would cause chaos. 

All states made arrangements to design, print and send mail ballots months ago. Changing those plans at this late stage would send them scrambling to update ballot envelope designs, have them approved by the USPS, printed in bulk and sent to voters — along with several other challenges, states have argued in court documents.

Multiple court decisions

The Trump administration has fought in court for weeks to allow the rule to go into effect before the midterms. 

Administration officials appealed an earlier Talwani restraining order blocking enforcement of the rule. That appeal is currently before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The Supreme Court last month sided with the administration in a procedural ruling finding that the Democratic state officials and voting rights groups did not have the ability to challenge Trump’s executive order before USPS issued its final rule. The challengers quickly refiled suits to reflect that the rule had been published.

The U.S. Justice Department and a handful of Republican-led states, including Missouri and Texas, defended the rule in the Thursday morning hearing, saying that it was a mail regulation within the agency’s purview, and did not seek to administer elections.

Voting rights groups have argued the rule risks disenfranchising voters and solves no urgent problem. 

Several phases of mail voting under the rule would put legitimate ballots at risk of rejection, they said, while the administration has shown no evidence that mail voting is particularly susceptible to fraud, as Trump repeatedly has claimed.

Portal problems

The buildout of an online tool the Postal Service plans to use to enforce the rule’s requirements for ballot designs and voter eligibility has also encountered problems, according to an explosive whistleblower report this week.

A USPS official provided a written declaration following Thursday’s hearing that the portal would be accessible to states that want to use it “sometime next week.”

The whistleblower account published Tuesday detailed many problems with the tool, which the whistleblower said should have been a yearlong project but was rushed out in months.

WASHINGTON — As public opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court flags amid decisions that have roiled the nation, Democrats renewed calls ahead of the midterms to expand the high court, while House Republicans attempted but failed to pass a constitutional amendment this week that proposes to cap the number at nine.

Just Monday, the court gave the green light to President Donald Trump’s ballroom expansion and is expected to issue a major ruling soon on Trump’s vote-by-mail order that could throw the midterm elections into chaos. 

The House voted 212-206 Wednesday on a constitutional amendment to codify the number of Supreme Court justices at nine. A two-thirds majority was needed.

One Democrat, Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina, supported the Republican-led resolution.

Over the weekend, Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said, “I think that we are in a position now that calls from some significant actions taken by the Congress.

“And we ought to expand — and 13 is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court,” the 17-term House Democrat said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press with Kristen Welker.”

Clyburn said conservatives on the court, specifically naming Justice Clarence Thomas, have decided to “take the country back” in time.

In late April, the Supreme Court’s conservative super majority struck down a protection in the Voting Rights Act that assured the vote of majority Black congressional districts could not be diluted.

In June, the court upheld the Constitution’s 14th Amendment guaranteeing birthright citizenship, but the decision was not unanimous. Four justices dissented, arguing that there are some exceptions for certain babies born to immigrants on U.S. soil, depending on their parents’ immigration status.

Clyburn is not the only Democrat to call for court expansion. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, a likely 2028 presidential hopeful, also advocated for a 13-justice high court during July 31 comments at the National Urban League meeting in Nashville, Tennessee.

Other high-profile Democrats have said in recent weeks and months they want to see change at the Supreme Court, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

As for public opinion, Pew Research found that just over half of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Supreme Court, according to survey results published July 30, a near historic low.

A Gallup poll published July 28 found confidence in the Supreme Court at a record low of 33%.

Constitutional amendment

While many Democrats’ answer to the dissatisfaction is to add more justices, the House Republican resolution proposed a constitutional amendment that would codify the number of justices at nine.

The resolution would also have to pass the Senate to begin the seven-year clock for three-fifths of states, or 38, to ratify it.

House Speaker Mike Johnson at a Tuesday press conference accused the Democratic Socialists of America, whom he referred to as the “communist socialists in the Democrat party who are taking the party over,” of wanting “to pack the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“We’re gonna make sure that doesn’t happen,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“There’s a couple of Democrats here in the House who have suggested that they’re not on board with the Democratic Socialists of America, just a few. They’re gonna get a chance to show us tomorrow. … Nine justices has worked well.”

Johnson added expanding the court risks turning into “a political palooza.”

His office did not respond to a States Newsroom request for comment on whether he believes the resolution would succeed or if leadership has put the bill on the floor calendar to send a message ahead of the November midterm elections in which control of the House is at stake.

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., introduced the resolution in January 2025. The resolution was referred to the House calendar on July 6 of this year. Biggs won the GOP primary for Arizona governor in July.

Biggs argued in early June that his resolution would protect the court from people “threatening to pack this iconic American institution to ensure favorable outcomes for their causes.”

“This action will protect the Court’s legitimacy, preserve the checks and balances that safeguard our cherished freedoms, and ensure every American’s rights remain secure – no matter who holds political power,” he said in a statement after the House Committee on the Judiciary advanced the legislation. 

Rep. Derrick Schmidt, R-Kansas, signed on as a cosponsor in early June, and Rep. Rick Allen, R-Ga., on July 16. Both men are in solidly Republican districts, according to the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter.

‘Magical thinking’

Not all think that expanding the Supreme Court or restricting its size to nine justices will fix what many see as serious flaws.

Gabe Roth, executive director of the nonprofit Fix the Court, said both ideas are “pretty cynical positions.”

“I think it just is part of this magical thinking that all of a sudden we’re going to have 13 justices and everything is going to be okay in the federal judiciary. That voting rights will come back, abortion rights will come back, and that’s not how cases reach the court,” said Roth, whose organization advocates for “non-ideological fixes.”

On the “keep nine” side, Roth said there’s a belief that the court now has a “perfect construct.”

“It’s not,” he said, adding “I don’t see why keep nine is a good idea other than to try to rile up the base.”

Instead Roth wants to see term limits gradually phased in over time.

“Every democracy that’s younger than ours has term limits or age limits for their apex court justices. Forty-nine out of 50 states have term limits, age limits, or retention elections for their apex courts,” he told States Newsroom in an interview Tuesday.

The Supreme Court lacks term limits “because King George was firing colonial judges, and so some monarch’s mental decrepitude shouldn’t be a reason for maintaining something 250 years later,” Roth said, referring to Great Britain’s King George III at-will firing of judges in the colonies.

Founders of the United States wrote into the Constitution several guardrails against influencing the court, including giving judges lifetime appointments, according to the American Bar Association.

Roth supports legislation introduced last year by Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., that would limit a justice’s Supreme Court service to 18 years, and would give each president a chance to nominate one justice during their first and third years in office.

That means the number of justices could fluctuate at times, depending on retirements or deaths.

“It’s basically like you add a new justice every two years, and you know, if there are 10 or 11 justices for 10 or 15 years, so be it,” he said.

Democrats “came to the number four because that would give Democrats a 7-6 majority. It’s not like they’re pulling four out of thin air,” he said, referring to advocates who want 13 justices.

The system would be “fair” and “regularized,” Roth added.

“​​So we don’t have a system where Trump gets three (nominations) in one term, and then Jimmy Carter got zero in his one term.”

Eight cosponsors, all Democrats, joined Khanna’s legislation. They include Reps. Don Beyer, D-Va., Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich, Sean Casten, D-Ill., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Daniel Goldman, D-N.Y., Juan Vargas, D-Calif., Summer Lee, D-Pa., and Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz.

Both Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., have sponsored other legislation to create term limits for Supreme Court justices.

Johnson’s bill, first introduced in 2023, has 86 Democratic cosponsors. 

Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Alex Padilla, D-Calif., joined Whitehouse to reintroduce their term limits bill in July. 

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump does not have to follow a lower court order to stop aboveground construction on his $400 million East Wing ballroom, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 5-4 decision, all but guaranteeing work on the new complex will continue to accelerate.

In an opinion from the conservative super-majority, the justices wrote that historic preservationists who sued to stop the project likely do not have standing and that the administration would be irreparably harmed by halting the construction.

National security officials, including several Cabinet members, the majority justices wrote, issued statements in the case “attesting to national security and other harms that would likely arise from enjoining a ‘single, coherent’ project that cannot be readily cleaved into distinct below- and above-ground pieces.”

“The Secretary of the Army, for example, represents that ‘[t]he height and mass’ of the planned above-ground ballroom are ‘crucial’ to shield the planned underground military installation ‘from kinetic impacts,’ and that, without such height and mass, ‘engineers would need to dig impractically deep,’” according to the unsigned opinion.

The justices wrote the stay is in effect pending a “timely” petition from the Trump administration to ask the high court to take the case this upcoming term, also known as granting a writ of certiorari. Monday’s opinion came from what’s known as the emergency docket, which provides expedited decisions without full oral arguments.

“Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court,” the justices wrote.

Trump triumphant

Trump wrote on his platform Truth Social that he’s “pleased to report that the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat. We are living in the Golden Age of America, and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C.”

Trump added he expects the “magnificent” project to be completed by the summer of 2028 and that it is “totally funded by Great Patriots and Corporations and, therefore, is a Gift — At no cost to the American Taxpayer.”

The administration has maintained in court filings that the East Wing project is paid for by private donations.

Trump continued: “The Project, despite the baseless lawsuit brought by the so-called National Trust for Historic Preservation of the United States, which is not in any way affiliated with the United States Government, is under budget and ahead of schedule.”

Brent Leggs, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, said in a statement the organization is “deeply disappointed” and disagrees with the ruling.

“It is noteworthy that the majority did not weigh in on whether the ballroom project was in fact legal.

We are pleased with Chief Justice Robert’s strong dissent, which reiterated what we have maintained from the start of our case—that construction of the White House ballroom is unlawful,” said Leggs, who leads the private nonprofit that was chartered by Congress in 1949 to encourage the protection of historic sites.

“In addition, this is not the final decision on the merits of our case and does not resolve our fundamental argument—that each President is a temporary steward of the People’s House and does not have the unilateral authority to demolish and redesign it without the approval of Congress.”

Leggs said the Trust expects the administration to file a writ of certiorari, and they urge the justices to “expeditiously” consider it.

Roberts disagrees

In a dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts and liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the construction is “likely unlawful” because Congress did not approve the changes to the White House grounds, which sit on federal park land.

“Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers,” Roberts wrote in the dissenting opinion.

The administration filed to the court’s emergency docket Aug. 13 asking the justices to block the lower court’s order, after a panel of federal appeals judges upheld it in a split decision a week prior.

Roberts granted a weeklong temporary stay on the lower court’s order while the justices took more time to consider the arguments.

The Trump administration maintained the planned 90,000-square-foot facility slated for where the White House East Wing used to stand will reach deep underground and will seat approximately 1,000 guests in an aboveground ballroom that is vital to national security. Trump demolished the East Wing in October 2025.

Officials told the Supreme Court justices in their stay application that as of mid-August, the project was already 65% complete, with a concrete-and-steel “superstructure” reaching five stories underground and 70 feet high, occupying nearly 50,000 square feet. 

Over the past four months, workers on a 250-person crew had been operating 20 hours a day, seven days a week, “to keep the Project ahead of schedule and under budget,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote, adding that $200 million has been spent or committed to date, and has been “shouldered by private donations.”

Reading Time: 7 minutes

The Wisconsin Supreme Court begins oral arguments in September under a new 5-2 liberal majority and faces a term that could feature politically charged cases, including those challenging the state’s congressional maps and seeking to restore collective bargaining rights for many public sector unions. 

The pending cases before the high court so far, and other legal issues that may arise over the course of the term, provide ample opportunity to observe how the justices operate under a new liberal supermajority, court watchers said. Will they accept more cases following a streak of fewer decisions in recent years than in prior terms? How will the justices respond in real time to election issues during the midterms? Will they change the long-standing approach the court uses to interpret state statutes?  

“Now that there is a clear majority, not just a one-vote majority, it’s entirely possible that the justices will start to differentiate themselves from one another more,” said Chad Oldfather, a professor at the Marquette University Law School. “Because there’s less of a pressure to act as a bloc.” 

The high court’s liberal majority grew to five after Chris Taylor’s dominant April victory in the 2026 Wisconsin Supreme Court race to replace conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley. Liberal justices have won five of the last six Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, shifting the court from a 5-2 conservative majority in 2018. 

The liberal wing includes Taylor, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky and justices Rebecca Dallet, Janet Protasiewicz and Susan Crawford. The conservatives include justices Annette Ziegler and Brian Hagedorn, who is often a swing vote.

“I’m guessing that it’s going to not seem like a 5-2 court this coming term,” said Alan Ball, a Marquette University professor who operates the SCOWstats blog that analyzes Wisconsin Supreme Court statistics. “Maybe like a 5-1-1: five liberals and then Ziegler is a conservative, and then Hagedorn, you know, who knows?” 

During the 2025 term, Hagedorn voted more often with the liberal wing of the court in split decisions than Crawford did in her first year as a justice, according to Ball’s review of the previous term. But Crawford aligned more with fellow liberals and Hagedorn with conservatives on more political issues, such as a case in the last term between Attorney General Josh Kaul and the Legislature over who controls settlement funds, Ball noted. 

Justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in 16 cases across seven days between Sept. 8 and Oct. 13. More cases could rise to the high court over the course of the new term. 

What decisions will justices make about the congressional map?

Justices will hear oral arguments related to two lawsuits challenging Wisconsin’s congressional map on Sept. 16, but any decisions are not expected to impact the 2026 midterm elections, in which primary elections have already set up the candidates in races this November. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court last November tapped two three-judge panels to hear the cases challenging the congressional maps as unconstitutional. One case, brought by a group of voters, argued the maps are a partisan gerrymander. The other case, brought by the Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy, argues the congressional maps are an anti-competitive gerrymander.

Both panels dismissed the challenges in separate rulings this spring, writing that only the high court could make decisions about the existing congressional maps. The voters and the business group appealed the decisions. 

The issues before the justices in September for the voter-brought case include whether Wisconsin’s constitution allows partisan gerrymandering and, for the Wisconsin Business Leaders case, whether the three-judge panel was wrong in considering “anti-competitive” and partisan gerrymandering as the same argument. 

Lucas Vebber, deputy counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, who is representing multiple intervenors in both maps cases, said their position remains that the Wisconsin constitution does not allow the groups in these cases to bring their gerrymandering claims. 

“This is a primary function of the Legislature,” Vebber explained. “Courts have a role to play, but they should stay within that role and not go beyond.” 

Jeff Mandell, general counsel for Law Forward, a progressive law firm representing the Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy in its case, said attorneys have asked the justices to issue a decision by the end of this year ahead of jury trial dates in April in that case.  

“If we’re able to hold that trial in April, that should provide time for the trial court to do its work, and for there to be an appeal if need be,” Mandell said. “And for there to be new districts that are constitutional for the 2028 congressional elections.” 

There would be no need for a trial if the high court affirms the three-judge panel’s dismissal, which would leave the existing maps in place. 

Will emergency election issues rise to the high court? 

While the court considers issues in the congressional maps case, legal experts say the stakes of the 2026 midterm elections make it likely that the justices could face potential fast-moving cases on voting and election-related issues. 

“We’ve had these fights over ballot boxes and whether you need to have a witness see your vote if you’re disabled. There was a whole issue of what has to be available for a disabled voter,” said Janine Geske, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice and professor at the Marquette University Law School. “Those kinds of things people can go right to the court and say ‘We’re going to bypass everybody. This is an emergency. We need the court to issue a ruling.’ I suspect, especially with all the talk of voting integrity or voting fraud … that we’re going to see that.” 

Recently, the high court ordered an expedited process for briefings in an appeal filed by the Democratic National Committee about a 2024 case that sought answers to whether a circuit court has the authority to extend hours at a polling location past 8 p.m.

The Waukesha-based 2nd District Court of Appeals this summer reversed a Walworth County judge’s order from the 2024 presidential election that allowed polling locations at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater campus to stay open until 10:30 p.m. on Election Day. The 2nd District in July reversed the decision, arguing it is up to the Legislature to determine polling hours. 

The court has yet to accept the DNC’s petition for review, but Ziegler questioned the majority’s motives in her lone dissent against speeding up the briefing process. The majority did not offer an explanation for expediting that timeline.

“We know not why this matter races to the front of the line. One would think further explanation would be forthcoming,” wrote Ziegler, who is not seeking reelection and is in her final year on the court. “One would think the majority would be more cautious to not appear to favor the political party that spent seemingly endless amounts of money to get them elected.” 

Will justices accept a case to restore pre-Act 10 collective bargaining rights? 

In late July, the 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed a 2024 Dane County Circuit Court ruling that restored collective bargaining rights for many public sector unions and employees. The unions in the case appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court less than three weeks later. 

The issues in this case stem from whether portions of Act 10 — the 2011 law signed by former Republican Gov. Scott Walker that spurred massive protests at the Capitol — that separate public safety and general public employees violate equal protection guarantees in Wisconsin’s constitution.

Geske said she sees a stronger argument in this case than past legal challenges to Act 10. But the justices will have to determine whether the court is held to previous opinions it has made related to Act 10, she said.

“I think that most of the justices who felt that are gone or no longer in the majority,” Geske said. 

Mandell, who is among the attorneys representing the unions in the case, said he expects the high court to decide whether to take the case sometime this fall. 

“If the court takes the case in the fall, then there’s ample time for it to be briefed and argued this term,” Mandell said. “Which means that by around the Fourth of July, we should have a final answer in Wisconsin about Act 10.” 

If the petition is accepted, the case would move forward without Hagedorn, who in January 2025 said he would not participate in the case. Hagedorn was chief legal counsel for Walker when Act 10 was drafted. 

What should courts use to interpret state laws? 

In a seemingly minor case about whether a former salesperson for a window company was eligible for unemployment insurance, the high court is expected to determine if it should use a new framework to interpret state statutes. 

For years, the courts have relied on a 2004 case that placed limits on when to use outside evidence, such as legislative history, to understand state statutes. Justices and legal experts have described the case, Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, as the most cited in Wisconsin Supreme Court history. 

The question before the high court is whether justices should take “a broader, holistic approach” to interpret state laws than what the Kalal case allows. 

“It’s really about how much we trust judges, or in this case, judges trust themselves to adequately or accurately assess things that legislators say,” Oldfather said. “Because the fear, of course, is that legislators will say self-serving things about what they pass into law.” 

The case has not been scheduled for oral arguments, but is among pending cases before the justices. Oldfather said it’s likely the majority will take the approach that Dallet wrote about in a 2021 case about conditions in a pollution discharge permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 

In 2021, Dallet wrote that the court’s approach to statutory interpretation should be “more comprehensive,” although she acknowledged that some sources may be more reliable than others.

“Such a holistic methodology would lead to more transparent analyses in which the court is upfront and honest about considering relevant extrinsic sources to interpret a statute’s meaning,” Dallet wrote in 2021. “That includes being transparent about those sources’ actual analytical value when they support more than one reasonable inference.”

Dallet brought up that approach again in a 2025 concurring opinion for a case that determined employees of University of Wisconsin hospitals and clinics did not have the ability to collectively bargain under Act 10. 

Bradley, who left the court in July, in the same 2025 decision criticized Dallet’s effort and said a “holistic” approach “would remove any remaining constraints on judicial overreach.” 

“It’s an open appeal for judges in this state to legislate from the bench,” Bradley wrote. “This court should stay the course and reject Justice Dallet’s invitation to unmoor the judiciary from the rule of law.”

Elections, Act 10 top list of hot-button issues facing Wisconsin Supreme Court’s new liberal supermajority is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, will not face criminal charges in Wisconsin for promising $1 million checks to voters during the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race.

La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke, a Democrat, who was tapped as a special prosecutor to review the case, wrote in a letter Tuesday that he did not believe a jury would convict Musk of a crime. 

“I have routinely worked with campaigns and candidates from both parties and nonpartisan elections to correct any potential violations of election/campaign laws,” Gruenke wrote. “In this case, without the famous name attached and the large dollar amounts involved, it is a simple case of a poorly worded statement that was corrected and brought into compliance with the law.”

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, the Democratic nominee for governor, said during a campaign stop in Madison he was “befuddled” by the decision.

Crowley, who said he had not read the reasoning behind the decision, was confused how Musk’s promises ahead of a 2025 event in Green Bay did not violate state laws. 

Wisconsin law prohibits a person from offering, promising, giving or lending anything of value to someone to convince the person to go to the polls, vote or refrain from voting. The Wisconsin Elections Commission in July found that Musk likely broke the law and referred complaints to the Brown County District Attorney’s Office, which earlier this month referred the case to Gruenke as a special prosecutor after identifying a conflict of interest. 

“We are talking about someone who publicly talked about giving a million dollars to folks to actually go vote, which is absolutely against the law here in the state of Wisconsin,” Crowley told reporters outside a health clinic in Madison.

U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Republican nominee for governor, did not immediately respond to questions from Wisconsin Watch Tuesday afternoon. 

Crowley on Tuesday did not say whether he would support additional legislation to strengthen the state’s election bribery laws.

“I would assume that our laws are very clear as far as the fact that we cannot give more than $1 to make sure that people are voting,” he said. “I think the laws are extremely clear.” 

Democratic state lawmakers last year proposed bills seeking to expand the state’s election bribery laws to prohibit payments to voters for signing petitions during an election, like in the Musk case. The legislation died without receiving a hearing in the Republican-controlled Legislature. 

The context 

About $144.5 million was spent on the 2025 election between now-Justice Susan Crawford and former Attorney General Brad Schimel, making it the most expensive state supreme court race in U.S. history. Musk spent about $30 million of that total, which included giveaways to conservative voters.

The issues stemmed from social media posts Musk made in March 2025. The first post promoted an event in Wisconsin in which Musk said entrance would be “limited to those who have voted in the Supreme Court Election” in addition to providing million-dollar checks to voters “in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.” 

Musk hours later shared a message that entrance was limited to people who signed a petition “in opposition to activist judges” and the million-dollar checks would be provided to spokespersons for the petition. 

Gruenke said he did not believe a jury would convict Musk given that nothing was given to individuals for voting.

“Even if I could convince a jury that the original post was still a bribe, I do not believe that a jury would convict Elon Musk of a crime after considering the intent, the second post, and the fact nothing of value was ever given to anyone for voting for an incident occurring in March of 2025,” Gruenke wrote. 

Musk still faces a civil lawsuit in Brown County Circuit Court brought by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign regarding bribery allegations tied to the 2025 state Supreme Court race.

Elon Musk won’t face criminal charges for offering voters $1 million checks during 2025 Supreme Court election is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

What happened?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday lifted one of two injunctions against President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting, but additional legal hurdles and practical considerations could make it difficult to implement it in time for the quickly approaching November elections.

The unsigned ruling, which cut along ideological lines, focused on a relatively narrow legal question: whether the lower court’s injunction was premature. The majority made it clear that it was not deciding on the legality of Trump’s order as a whole, which is certain to be quickly challenged again in court as the administration moves to put its provisions in place.

“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 majority wrote. “On that score, time will tell.”

The ruling, made in response to an emergency request, didn’t specify which justices had joined it. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented, warned that the ruling would create a “Kafkaesque nightmare” that “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate dissent, joined by Justice Elena Kagan.

What’s the dispute?

Shortly after Trump issued his executive order in March, states, nonprofit organizations and Democratic Party committees filed multiple lawsuits seeking to block it. In June, in the case brought by states, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani found that some key provisions of the order were unconstitutional and blocked them from going into effect for this year’s elections.

Talwani issued an injunction specifically preventing the federal government from enforcing those provisions of the order against the 24 jurisdictions (23 states and the District of Columbia) whose attorneys general and governors brought the lawsuit. The list included most Democratic-led and swing states, including Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The Trump administration appealed, arguing the judge’s order was issued prematurely, before the Postal Service and other relevant agencies had finalized their plans to carry out the order’s provisions. The administration also argued that the injunction prevented it from implementing the order in the unaffected states because of the logistical impossibility of a bifurcated mail-voting system.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Talwani’s order in late July, prompting the administration to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the order and allow the agencies to act in time for the November election. In filings, the states warned that “the consequences of allowing such transformative changes to take effect so close to this fall’s elections would be extreme” and would disenfranchise voters.

On Aug. 11, Talwani issued a separate injunction against the order in the lawsuit brought by nonprofit groups, led by the League of Women Voters. The decision made it clear that her ban on implementing the law extended to all states, not just the 24 jurisdictions that brought the other lawsuit. That ruling again rejected the Trump administration argument that it was too soon to address the underlying issues.

The Trump administration again asked the Supreme Court to issue a ruling and make it clear that it would also apply to the Aug. 11 court order. If not, Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned in a court filing, it would require prolonged legal battles that would “effectively run out the clock” on the government’s ability to implement its plans.

On Friday, while the administration’s request was still pending before the Supreme Court, the Postal Service issued its final rules for implementing the order, which it said it would not put into effect for this November’s election unless and until the Supreme Court cleared the way.

The Supreme Court’s ruling addressed neither the second injunction nor the fact that the Postal Service had issued final rules, leaving observers to wonder about how those developments might affect what happens next.

“I expect that the trial court will now amend (the second) injunction and issue a new injunction that will stop USPS from implementing its now final rule. And that too may end up at the Supreme Court within a week,” wrote Rick Hasen, an election law professor at UCLA, on the Election Law Blog shortly after the ruling.

What happens now?

The Supreme Court’s ruling Monday will not be the final word on Trump’s executive order. The question before the Supreme Court was a relatively narrow one about whether Talwani issued her order prematurely, before the government had taken final action to carry out the executive order. The states and voting rights groups are likely to go back to court quickly to challenge the Postal Service and the final rules it issued last week.

Talwani has also not yet ruled on whether the order can go into effect for future elections, which she found would be premature. A parallel case involving consolidated challenges brought by nonprofit groups and Democratic Party committees is pending in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Should Trump’s executive order go into effect, it would mandate the creation of a series of lists. The Department of Homeland Security would be required to send each state a list of citizens over the age of 18. States using mail ballots would be required to send the federal government a list of all registered voters to whom they are sending mail-in and absentee ballots in key federal elections. The Postal Service’s final rule states that it will decline to deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not provide that list.

The order would also create new design standards and ballot-tracking requirements for mail ballots. Creating such a complicated process before November presents a huge challenge for the cash-strapped Postal Service.

Read more Votebeat coverage of Trump’s executive order on elections:

• Trump issues second executive order on elections, giving U.S. Postal Service unprecedented control over mail voting, March 31, 2026
• Trump administration sued by states over mail voting executive order, April 3, 2026
• One line in Trump’s order would reshape how long states have to store election records, April 6, 2026
• We still have questions about Trump’s new executive order on elections, April 6, 2026
• Two reminders that the rules of the 2026 election are still in flux, May 11, 2026
• Federal judge refuses to block Trump executive order on mail voting — for now, May 28, 2026
• USPS proposal to carry out Trump’s executive order could create new barriers to mail voting, May 29, 2026
• Trump’s moves to erect voting hurdles face race against the clock, June 15, 2026
• Federal judge blocks key pillars of Trump executive order restricting mail voting in 2026 election, June 25, 2026
• Trump administration asks federal judge to quickly lift ban on planned mail voting restrictions, July 2, 2026
• Trump is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow new mail ballot restrictions in the 2026 midterms, Aug. 3, 2026
• Federal judge blocks Trump’s efforts to restrict mail-in voting nationwide, Aug. 11, 2026

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Carrie Levine is Votebeat’s editor-in-chief and is based in Washington, D.C. Contact Carrie at clevine@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat’s free weekly newsletter to get the latest.

What to know about the US Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s mail ballot restrictions is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

A federal court ruling out of Idaho has potential implications for exceptions in abortion bans nationwide and could eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide.

U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled earlier this month that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides a narrow right for a pregnant patient to obtain an abortion if the pregnancy could be a risk to their health, including their mental health. It’s the first ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health in 2022 to find that the U.S. Constitution includes a right to abortion access in certain situations.  

Mary Ziegler, a legal historian and law professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, said Winmill’s ruling could be the beginning of a “slow erosion” of the Dobbs decision, similar to the way that anti-abortion advocates used lawsuits and legislation to chip away at the law established by Roe v. Wade after it was decided in 1973.

Supreme Court justices appear split over whether to protect abortion care during emergencies

“They kind of worked over the course of decades to do a death by a thousand cuts, chipping away at its breadth,” Ziegler said. “This may be kind of a funhouse mirror version of that.”

For years, anti-abortion state officials and advocacy groups used various legal tactics to diminish access to abortion nationwide after Roe v. Wade determined that the procedure was a constitutional right. Over time, state legislatures passed procedural laws that made it more difficult for providers to offer abortion services, as well as so-called “fetal pain” laws, and worked up to passing the six-week and 15-week abortion bans that eventually led to Dobbs. 

Two years ago, U.S. Supreme Court justices were asked to consider whether Idaho could set aside federal law mandating stabilizing care in an emergency if that stabilizing care, in a doctor’s opinion, was to terminate a pregnancy. Now the question could be whether any pregnancy scenario where a patient’s physical or mental health is threatened is something that all states can regulate under Dobbs.

Health exceptions

Out of the 13 states that have near-total abortion bans, five have no exception for preserving a pregnant patient’s health, including Idaho, Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Dakota. 

All 13 have an exception to save a pregnant woman’s life, but doctors say there most often is no clear moment when they can easily say a person will die without an immediate abortion. Instead, doctors are left to guess whether terminating a pregnancy to save a patient would cost them their license to practice or land them in prison.

Even in states with health exceptions, some doctors hesitate to act because of the ban,  opting for delays that can cause medical complications such as organ damage or fertility loss. An Arkansas woman said she was denied an abortion during a miscarriage in 2024, resulting in a days-long ordeal that eventually led to her being transferred out of state to Kansas, where abortion is legal.

Winmill’s legal decision blocks enforcement of Idaho’s near-total abortion ban when a pregnancy is terminated under those circumstances. Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a Republican, appealed the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, and also asked Winmill to pause that injunction while the decision is appealed.

“The state’s interest in protecting unborn children from unjustified abortion is irreparably harmed by the order, and public interest and equity support a stay for that same reason,” Idaho Assistant Solicitor General Aaron Green wrote in the request for a stay.

The attorney general and leadership at the Idaho Family Policy Center, a religious organization that helped craft the legislation that established the state’s ban, have expressed confidence that Winmill’s decision will be reversed quickly.

“The Fourteenth Amendment protects the basic rights that are part of the historical fabric of our nation, not a right to take the life of an innocent child in the womb, an act that was a crime at the time that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified,” said Caleb Pirc, general counsel for the Idaho Family Policy Center, in a statement. “We fully expect Judge Winmill’s attempt to shoehorn a right to abortion into the Constitution to be swiftly rejected on appeal.” 

Supreme Court watch

Dr. Stacy Seyb, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist  for Idaho’s largest health system, St. Luke’s, sued state officials and the Idaho Board of Medicine in 2024, arguing that the state’s near-total ban prevented him from providing appropriate care to all of his patients. Maternal-fetal medicine specialists handle the most high-risk pregnancies, including patients carrying multiples and those with conditions such as high blood pressure and gestational diabetes.  

In his ruling, Winmill wrote that although Dobbs allowed states to regulate abortion access, that case was about elective abortions, and that his ruling was about a pregnant woman’s ability to seek care under “the most difficult and tragic circumstances,” almost always when the woman wanted the pregnancy.

U.S. Supreme Court ruling reinstates ability to perform emergency abortions in Idaho under ban

“By banning health-preserving abortion, Idaho attempts to deny this fundamental right on the basis that the threat of harm comes from a fetus, which depends on the woman for survival,” Winmill wrote. “But a pregnant woman’s health is not a state resource to be allocated at the legislature’s whim. The Fourteenth Amendment exists precisely to prevent subjugation like this.”

Winmill discussed the history of abortion bans in his opinion, writing that when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the states and territories that restricted abortion also included exceptions for therapeutic purposes when a doctor was acting in good faith.

But Winmill went further than many judges have gone by including a pregnancy’s threats to mental health, something that only Alabama has recognized as an explicit healthcare exception for abortions among states with bans, according to KFF. There, a psychiatrist is required to diagnose a pregnant patient with a serious mental illness that could result in their death or the death of the fetus in order to qualify for that exception.

“The brain is an organ of the body, and healthcare providers use empirical tools to reliably assess the risk of suicidality and the most effective treatments,” Winmill wrote. “It is an affront to human dignity to bar pregnant women from receiving life-saving care on the basis that the threat comes from a mental health condition rather than a physical health condition.”

Idaho’s role

Idaho has been at the center of the national debate about when health conditions take priority over an abortion ban since the first year after the Dobbs decision. 

The U.S. Department of Justice under former President Joe Biden sued Idaho to require that it acknowledge a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act — better known as EMTALA — in the context of patients who come to the emergency room with pregnancies that may need to be terminated to prevent infection or other adverse health outcomes.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard that case in late April 2024, but sent it back to the lower appellate court in June, saying it was too early in the process for justices to have considered ruling on it. The case was later dropped by the DOJ under President Donald Trump, but St. Luke’s filed its own lawsuit against the state that is still ongoing. That case is also before Winmill in federal court.

At the time of the EMTALA arguments, Idaho officials had argued that if it allowed women to get a legal abortion in an emergency room, anyone could come to a hospital’s emergency department  and threaten to harm themselves.  

Tanya Pellegrini, co-director of litigation at The Lawyering Project and one of the attorneys who represented Seyb in this month’s case, said that wasn’t true under EMTALA, and it won’t be true following Winmill’s ruling. 

“I think the order really speaks for itself in terms of why mental health should not be treated differently from physical health,” Pellegrini said.

Ziegler said she won’t be surprised if Seyb’s case ends up before the Supreme Court in the near future, because it strikes at the heart of questions about the Dobbs decision that have yet to be fully resolved.

“It’s a really important question that they’ll have to address sooner or later,” Ziegler said. 

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has not slowed his pursuit of central policy goals and personal passions, even after major setbacks at the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts.

The high court in its 2026 term delivered blows to Trump’s core campaign promises to upend a constitutional provision governing who becomes a U.S. citizen at birth and to swiftly address the growing national debt with “trillions of dollars” raised by taxing imports. 

The justices also ruled the president cannot fire, without cause, Fed Board Gov. Lisa Cook and deny her a chance to plead her case. And a lower court blocked Trump from installing his name on the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

But even after the Supreme Court ruled against him, Trump is forging ahead and using what some legal observers describe as “creative lawyering” to find alternative routes to push his agenda, even as public support fades.

He ordered new blanket tariffs in late July on at least 60 trading partners. He signed a new round of birthright citizenship orders Aug. 6. Reports also revealed that Cook received a letter Aug. 5 from administration officials that Trump is again “considering” firing her.

The moves test the power dynamic between the executive and judicial branches, but are not illegal or even unconventional in modern times, experts said.

“They look at it and they say, ‘We want to advance a particular policy agenda. Here’s the whole array of legal arguments that we might be able to use that give us authority,’’’ said Scott Anderson, senior fellow at the centrist Brookings Institution and senior counsel and editor of the publication Lawfare.

Trump is not alone in this pursuit. After all, President Joe Biden found another route to student loan debt relief after a loss at the Supreme Court. A federal appeals court effectively axed the Biden-era relief program in March.

“It does happen, and (administrations) will sometimes run the risk of legal reversal, but it’s a rarer move,” Anderson said. “For this administration, it’s become the standard move.”

‘Spirit of the law’

While Anderson said Trump’s responses to the rulings are “not surprising” given the legal strategy of his second term, one could argue the “legal brinksmanship … often clearly runs contrary to some of the spirit of the law, and it capitalizes on a lot of institutional inefficiencies.” 

Thomas Berry, a legal scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute, said while Trump has often used rhetoric to “delegitimize the court,” his recent actions are not out of legal bounds.

“What he’s doing is distinct from outright disobedience or ignoring a Supreme Court’s decision, and it’s important to stress that that line has not been crossed,” said Berry, who directs the institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies.

A White House spokesperson said the administration has “always followed court orders.”

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Cook case required notice and an opportunity for a hearing in considering whether the President should take certain adverse employment actions. The President’s notice sent to Fed. Governor Cook offers exactly that within the precise structure enunciated by the Court,” said Lauren Bis in a brief written response from the White House.

A Department of Justice spokesperson, who did not provide a name, wrote in a statement, “Investigative and prosecutorial decisions are made based on the law and the facts. To date, DOJ has prevailed in 24 emergency applications before the Supreme Court, winning over 80 percent, an unprecedented win rate that speaks for itself, and has also won dozens of merits cases at the Court.”

The spokesperson highlighted the department’s Supreme Court win in June that allows the administration to follow through with plans to deport between about 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians who were living in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status.

Birthright citizenship

On the final day of its 2026 term, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s sweeping attempt to deny citizenship to children born to parents who either do not have legal status or hold temporary legal visas. 

Chief Justice John Roberts led the 6-3 opinion on June 30, writing that children born in the U.S. to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present “are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.”

Today’s exceptions for those who are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction include foreign diplomats and their families, members of invading armies and in most cases foreign public ships passing in nearby waters.

On Aug. 6, Trump signed two executive orders again aimed at curtailing birthright citizenship. The first targets children born to the staff working for foreign diplomats; to children born in American Samoa, where Congress has yet to pass a citizenship law; and to the children born to parents who belong to what the U.S. defines as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.”  

“So what Trump is trying to do with these executive orders is he’s trying to say, ‘OK fine, those are the categories you’ve given us. We’re going to try to push those to the maximal extent possible,’” Berry said.

“And he interprets them broadly,” Berry continued. “Do people have diplomatic immunity or not? That’s kind of a factual question. Literally the ambassador and the ambassador’s spouse, they get diplomatic immunity. But does everyone from the foreign country working in the embassy similarly get immunity from U.S. law? That wasn’t my impression.”

Trump is also seeking to limit birthright citizenship by taking what Berry described as a “maximalist view” of what an invading army is.

“It’s not obvious that that analogy extends to people who are part of designated terrorist groups because they’re not literally rampaging and pillaging,” he said. “This is more people who are living here but have been, you know, labeled as part of a group that’s at odds with the United States.”  

Anderson said the administration “clearly is intending to just take advantage of every hint and every limitation the Supreme Court decision left open.”

The American Civil Liberties Union on Aug. 12 began the process of asking the federal judiciary to reaffirm the Supreme Court ruling. 

Tariffs

Trump’s trade policy provides another example of the administration finding a new legal reasoning after the Supreme Court struck down the initial basis for a major administration goal.

In the midst of refunding roughly $166 billion to businesses that paid taxes on imports under Trump’s emergency tariffs, the president has hopscotched across multiple trade statutes to continually impose at least 10% duties on most global goods since his Supreme Court loss in February.

In a 6-3 opinion, the high court struck down Trump’s unprecedented claim of tariff authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Congress retained tariff authority in most circumstances, Roberts wrote for the majority, and Trump could not use the statute to impose duties after declaring emergencies on trade imbalances and illegal drug smuggling.

Trump lost the case to a handful of small business owners and Democratic state officials. Tariffs are taxes paid by the importers, meaning American businesses were shouldering the additional costs.

Trump immediately turned to another statute, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the president to unilaterally set up to 10% in tariffs for 150 days. 

The order set off another round of legal challenges, including from Democratic-led states, in the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Less than a month after the Supreme Court loss, the U.S. Office of the Trade Representative also opened broad trade investigations under Section 301 of the 1974 law into the practices of nearly all U.S. trading partners.

As the clock ran out on Trump’s 10% blanket tariff under Section 122 on July 24, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer announced his office had found forced labor practices by roughly 60 of America’s trading partners, including Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, among dozens more. The findings triggered a 10% to 12.5% duty on most goods from those countries.

Days earlier, Trump announced he would use a Depression-era provision that had never been enforced — Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — to slap a 50% duty on most Canadian imports. The U.S., for now, has delayed the start of the high tariffs as talks with Canada continue, according to reports.

Trump’s strategy on pushing tariffs is “not really surprising at all,” Anderson said, adding “it’s not even inappropriate.”

“The Supreme Court never said, ‘You can’t do tariffs.’ In fact, it said basically you can. It just said ‘You can’t do it this way.’ And that automatically points to these other ways, which everyone said is probably a more sound way to do this if the president really wants to do this,” Anderson said.

“It doesn’t mean it’s good policy,” he added. “It doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, but there’s at least a very colorable case the president can do this all legally. ”

2025 deportation flights

Trump’s “aggressive” legal strategy has set him apart from other presidents, and, despite specific recent examples that haven’t crossed a legal line, the administration likely violated court orders in relation to immigration, according to observers.

“I think there are some cases that push the envelope, might be unlawful, particularly around, like, some of those early deportations,” Anderson said. “But the majority of the time, the executive branch has been responding and complying with court orders. It’s capitalizing on the fact that those orders are often very narrow.”

Berry also highlighted the March 2025 deportation flights that took off with hundreds of immigrants on board despite a court order as a potential example of cases “where these agencies have outright violated court orders.”

Overall, the courts have been a check on the administration’s view of expansive power, both experts said.

“It is worth taking a moment to realize, like, just how vastly smaller the scope of this (most recent) birthright executive order is after the Supreme Court,” Berry said. “The decision did cut off the vast majority of options the administration has. I mean, you think about the scope of millions of people that the original order would have affected, and compare that to this. It’s just night and day.”

Electorate another check

Voters are also a check on power, observers say.

With crucial midterm elections approaching, Trump’s net approval rating is -26, meaning the percentage of voters who approve of him is 26 points below those who disapprove, according to The Economist/YouGov poll figures published Aug. 18. A Reuters/Ipsos found Trump’s approval rating at a record low of 33%, according to data published Aug. 17.

A recent Fox New poll last month showed most voters disapproved of Trump’s handling of the economy. And 55% told Reuters/Ipsos just days before the Supreme Court ruling that they disapproved of Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship.

Trump surrounded himself in his second term with people who “openly denigrated” a lot of norms of the executive office and are “acting accordingly” to what they saw their voter base wanted, Anderson said.

“I think they probably overreacted to this idea that simply by winning the last election, that voters have a high tolerance for this,” Anderson said. “And Republicans in Congress and potentially in 2028 are going to pay a price for that.”

Anderson added if voters and lawmakers don’t like the loopholes Trump’s legal strategy is employing, then maybe it’s time for Congress to close them.

“If we don’t think our laws align with what we think is right ethically and good policy, then maybe they do need to be adjusted,” he said. 

“Maybe if we want a robust separation of powers, we need to take actions that will empower the courts and Congress to push back on executive aggrandizement more effectively, as opposed to the trajectory over the most of the 20th century, which was implicitly, sometimes expressly, more or less empowering the executive branch on the assumption that the executive branch was going to self-constrain itself.” 

‘Everything people don’t like’

As for the Kennedy Center: Despite a judge’s order that led to the yanking of Trump’s name from the facade of the revered performing arts venue in mid-June, Trump’s hand-picked board voted Aug. 13 to again affix his name to the building. 

This time, instead of above John F. Kennedy’s name, the board voted to add an inscription underneath to read “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump,” according to court records.

A federal judge had found that Trump’s name, which had already been added, could not officially remain there without authorization from Congress.

“It’s sort of everything people don’t like about lawyers at its extreme. … This is kind of again looking for a loophole —  they’re going to argue ‘We are not naming the center. We are adding this appendage,’” Berry said. 

“So long as it’s just like naming the renovation, you know, kind of like a sponsorship deal at the end of the name of a stadium or something like that, that’s acceptable because it’s not renaming the center,” he continued. “So we’re likely to have litigation about that too, and it’s going to be a pretty lawyerly and probably annoying debate.”

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump can continue building a White House ballroom for now, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday, reversing a federal judge’s order that barred above-ground construction on the grounds of the former East Wing.

The one-page order from Chief Justice John Roberts allows the justices more time to consider the legal arguments as to whether the president can continue with construction. 

The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, a nonprofit Congress created to protect public buildings, sued to block construction late last year. The group charged that Trump violated the U.S. Constitution and federal law when he demolished part of the White House last July without approval from Congress. 

The trust wrote in its brief to the high court that the trial court’s pause should remain in place because any progress on the project could not easily be undone.

“We are grateful for the Decision of the United States Supreme Court,” Trump wrote on social media after the order. “The Military/Ballroom Complex being built on the hallowed grounds of the White House, which is so vital for National Security, will be THE GREATEST OF ITS KIND! Construction is under budget and ahead of schedule.”

Trump has argued the 90,000-square-foot ballroom — which the administration said this month will cost $400 million, double the initial estimate — is needed to reinforce security features and provide a larger space to host foreign dignitaries. Trump has said the project is being funded with private donations.

The East Wing of the White House was built in 1942. Workers last October demolished it, even after Trump said the ballroom construction would not impact the building. 

A federal appeals court this month upheld the lower court order that barred further construction of the ballroom above ground, but allowed for below-ground construction. The appeals court stayed its decision for 14 days to give the administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON — Historic preservationists asked the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday to deny President Donald Trump’s appeal to continue construction on his $400 million White House ballroom on the grounds of the demolished East Wing.

In response to Trump’s application to the high court, the National Trust for Historic Preservation argued irreparable harm would result if construction continued, and that the project is “illegal” without authorization from Congress.

The Trust lawyers highlighted that the Trump administration has argued in court the ballroom will be “virtually impossible to deconstruct” because it will be constructed out of nuclear power plant-grade concrete.

“That is the essence of irreparable harm,” the Trust argued in the 48-page filing.

“Petitioners make no secret of the fact that if the Court permits construction to continue, they will declare the case over,” according to the Trust, a private nonprofit chartered by Congress in 1949 to encourage the protection of historic sites.

By contrast, the organization argued, the president and his administration would not be harmed if the Supreme Court left intact a lower court order halting above-ground construction.

Security complex

Court filings from the administration have publicly revealed that a security complex under the ballroom will descend five stories, and is well on its way to completion. 

The concrete-and-steel “superstructure,” reaching five stories deep and 70 feet high, already encompassing about 50,000 square feet, is 65% finished, according to the administration. 

Plans include a 1,000-seat ballroom incorporated into a “highly integrated military complex” with drone-proof ceilings, bomb shelters, sniper nests, “military-grade venting,” and “state-of-the-art hospital and medical facilities.” 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit panel on Aug. 7 upheld, 2-1, the lower court order blocking all but underground construction while litigation continued.

The Trust further argued Tuesday that any above-ground construction happening is already illegal because Congress didn’t authorize it, which means the administration would not likely win the case should the Supreme Court take it up. 

“The question is simply who decides whether a ballroom can be built on federal property. Our constitutional system and federal law commits that choice to Congress,” the Trust argued. 

“If Petitioners believe there is a pressing need for a ballroom, nothing prevents them from asking Congress for one — today, tomorrow, or any time in the future,” the brief reads. “But Petitioners’ efforts to foil judicial review and arrogate Congress’s exclusive powers should not be rewarded with a stay that allows Petitioners to complete a ballroom they lacked any authority to commence in the first place.”

Democrats back preservationists

More than 30 Democratic U.S. senators, U.S. House Democratic leaders and committee ranking members from both chambers filed a brief Tuesday in support of the Trust.

Lawmakers who signed the brief are from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington.

“The White House is, indisputably, federal property. It was built only after Congress authorized its construction and appropriated funds to cover that expense,” the lawmakers wrote. “And for over two centuries since, the White House has been renovated and maintained pursuant to congressional authorizations and appropriations.”

But Congress “neither authorized the demolition of the White House’s East Wing and construction of a ballroom nor appropriated funds to carry out that project,” they continued.

Trump maintains the ballroom project is being funded entirely by private donations. 

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who was Trump’s personal attorney before joining the government, told the Supreme Court in the administration’s application last week that $200 million has already been spent or committed to the project. 

Sauer argued that a statute governing the Department of the Interior allows private donations to cover projects on land administered by the National Park Service. The service, an agency within the Interior Department, manages the White House and President’s Park.

The Democratic senators who signed onto the amicus brief were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Angela Alsobrooks and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Gary Peters of Michigan, Adam Schiff of California, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Ron Wyden of Oregon

The Democratic House leaders who joined the brief were Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, of New York, Minority Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar of California. 

The other representatives who signed on were Robert Garcia, Jared Huffman, Ro Khanna, Mark Takano, Maxine Waters and Zoe Lofgren of California; Jim Hines of Connecticut; Rick Larsen and Adam Smith of Washington state; Jamie Raskin of Maryland; Bobby Scott of Virginia; Bennie Thompson of Mississippi; and Gregory Meeks and Joe Morelle of New York.

Republican AGs want ballroom

A brief led by the Republican Attorneys General Raúl Labrador of Idaho and Todd Rokita of Indiana argued the Supreme Court should side with Trump because the National Trust allegedly built its case on the “associational standing” of one of its board members who would not suffer harm.

“This case is about more than a ballroom. It is about whether a passerby’s aesthetic objection to a government construction project furnishes not just the passerby standing, but an uninjured association standing to air its grievances in court,” the attorneys general wrote. 

The argument echoed Trump’s many public statements that the case against his ballroom rests on the objection of one person who sometimes walks by the White House.

That risk is “of significant interest to States across the Nation,” they wrote.  “Amici States have extensive experience litigating against organizations that invoke associational standing as their ticket into court.”

The attorneys general concluded: “The Court should not allow groups whose members claim offense to sue over virtually anything and everything.” 

A federal district judge in December had already denied the Trust’s initial request for a temporary restraining order based on the lack of irreparable harm for an initial plaintiff.

The most recent lower court decision is based on an amended complaint filed by the Trust in early March.

In addition to Idaho and Indiana, the Republican attorneys general who signed the brief are from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Two members of the Arizona state legislature also signed it.

The unions that won a circuit court ruling to overturn Wisconsin’s Act 10, the 2011 law stripping most public employees’ collective bargaining rights, are asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reinstate that ruling after an appeals court reversed the lower court.

The plaintiffs filed their state Supreme Court appeal Monday. They include unions affiliated with the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union and the Teamsters.

Act 10, one of the signature laws passed early in former Gov. Scott Walker’s two terms, ended collective bargaining rights for most state and local employees, making an exception for certain public safety employees. The law survived a series of court challenges in the years immediately after its passage.

In December 2024, however, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Jacob Frost ruled  that the law made an arbitrary distinction between the public safety employees who kept their union rights under Act 10 and other public safety employees who lost those rights.

State Capitol Police, University of Wisconsin Police, and state conservation wardens were “treated unequally with no rational basis for that difference” when they were denied collective bargaining, Frost ruled, and for that reason, Act 10 violated the Wisconsin Constitution’s equal protection clause.

The law remained in place pending appeals, and more than 18 months later, the 2nd District Court of Appeals overturned Frost’s ruling in a 2-1 decision July 29.

The Legislature’s reasoning for making the distinction wasn’t an issue, so long as there are “any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification,” Judges Mark Gundrum and Shelley Grogan wrote.

Judge Lisa Neubauer dissented, arguing that the unions that kept their bargaining rights had all supported Walker’s election in 2010 just months before he took office and signed Act 10 into law. Excluding them from the law while subjecting other public safety employees to its restrictions “is not based on any identified ‘substantial distinction’ that makes the first group really different from the other,” Neubauer wrote.

The new appeal quotes Neubauer’s dissent in arguing for the justices to take up the case.

“This Court should accept review and reaffirm that, as Judge Neubauer put it in her dissent, ‘rational-basis review is not a rubber stamp,’” the unions’ motion states. “Here, because Act 10’s classification between ‘public safety’ and ‘general’ employees cannot survive anything greater than rubber-stamp-level scrutiny, that classification violates Article I, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution.”

The new appeal also challenges a finding from the appeals court majority, which found Wisconsin’s equal protection clause was identical to the federal equal protection clause and that a 2013 federal appeals court ruling had already found Act 10 constitutional.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court Thursday to intervene in a lower court decision that halts his $400 million White House ballroom construction unless he receives authorization from Congress.

The administration requested the justices grant an immediate stay to a 2-1 federal appeals court decision that sided with historic preservationists who argued Trump doesn’t have the authority to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom where the White House East Wing stood until Trump ordered its demolition in October 2025.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued the decision on Aug. 7 but delayed the ruling for two weeks to allow the administration time to appeal.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who previously defended Trump before the high court as his personal defense attorney, argued the project was needed to enhance security at the White House.

The “updated East Wing complex is absolutely required and should not be enjoined,” he said, citing assassination attempts on the president. 

Sauer also wrote that Congress has “twice over” already authorized the current project, through a 1916 law governing the National Park Service and a 1978 statute, by empowering the Department of the Interior to embark on major construction projects and delegating powers to the president to use appropriated funds to alter the White House.

“Following this tradition, President Trump determined that many factors urgently required modernizing the old East Wing — most critically, that it no longer performed vital security functions,” according to the appeal.

“Compounding those problems were structural defects, such as a degraded foundation, crumbling roof, pervasive mold and mildew, water-related deterioration, obsolete electrical infrastructure, toxic asbestos, and lead paint.”

In a written statement to States Newsroom Friday, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the group that initially sued to stop construction, described the administration’s application to the Supreme Court as “audacious.”

The “transparent efforts to evade the rule of law, frustrate judicial review, and limit the availability of meaningful relief in the courts must stop here,” the statement, attributed to the group as a whole, said.

‘Military complex’

The Trump administration has asserted publicly the project would serve as a security upgrade. Sauer again made that argument in his 45-page appeal. 

The ballroom, which is expected to seat 1,000 people, will be incorporated into a “highly integrated military complex” descending several stories underground, he told the court, and would include security features such as drone-proof ceilings, bomb shelters, sniper nests, “military-grade venting,” and “state-of-the-art hospital and medical facilities.”

The trust noted that courts had already rejected the security arguments.

“Each court reviewing this case has ruled that construction of the Ballroom is unlawful,” the statement said. “Each court has seriously and carefully considered the administration’s asserted national security concerns. And each court has ruled that while underground bunker construction can continue, Ballroom construction must stop.”

According to Thursday’s appeal, the project is already 65% complete, with a concrete-and-steel “superstructure” reaching five stories underground and 70-feet high, occupying nearly 50,000 square feet. 

The construction has accelerated over the past four months, with workers on a 250-person crew operating 20 hours a day, seven days a week, “to keep the Project ahead of schedule and under budget,” Sauer wrote, adding that $200 million has been spent or committed to date, and has been “shouldered by private donations.”

The National Trust for Historic Preservation accused the administration of taking advantage of the court delay to speed construction.

“The administration has not only refused to listen, but is now actively attempting to outrun the courts by accelerating construction of the Ballroom,” the group said.

“The administration’s audacious Supreme Court filing today announced it would be installing another 1 million pounds of rebar and pouring another 3,000 cubic yards of concrete in just the next week alone, before the Appeals Court’s stay of the injunction expires next Friday,” the group said.

Court battle

In mid-April, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blocked any above-ground construction on the ballroom, allowing underground construction on security facilities to continue. 

A day later, April 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stayed the lower court ruling and put the case on a fast track. 

The National Trust for Historic Preservation hailed the split appeals court decision earlier this month as a “great day for our country and for the American people’s right to voice their opinions about the historic places they cherish, including the White House.”

“From the beginning, our position has been clear and consistent: the law states that only Congress can authorize the construction of a ballroom at the White House,” the trust’s president and CEO Brent Leggs said in a statement Aug. 7.

The East Wing was originally built in 1902 as a receiving area for visitors, according to the White House Historical Association. A 1942 renovation added a bomb shelter and a second story. From the late 1970s onward, beginning with first lady Rosalynn Carter, the wing housed the office of first ladies and their staff.

The Michigan Public Service Commission must revisit its order approving the Enbridge Energy Line 5 tunnel project because it did not properly examine environmental harms that might arise from extending the pipeline’s lifespan, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The controversial pipeline runs from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario, with a 4.5-mile segment of dual pipelines running through the Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet.

The decision written by Justice Elizabeth Welch was nearly unanimous — Justice Brian Zahra, the lone Republican-nominated justice, issued a dissent. Welch was joined by Chief Justice Megan Cavanagh and Justices Richard Bernstein, Kyra Harris Bolden, Kimberly Thomas and Noah Hood, all nominated or appointed by the Democratic Party.

Welch ultimately determined that the commission needed to assess the potential environmental harms in a new review, and compare those impacts with presented alternatives.

“The PSC must consider the extent to which the replacement project may pollute, impair, or destroy public trust resources,” Welch wrote.

The commission in December 2023 approved the project’s permit application, determining that the tunnel project would be the best available solution to mitigate concerns of an oil spill from the 4.5 mile-segment of dual pipelines running through the Straits of Mackinac.

The Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi and several environmental advocacy groups challenged the decision.

They argued the commission failed to consider several alternatives to the Line 5 tunnel project, and that the commission had improperly limited the scope of its review by blocking parties from submitting evidence on the scope of the project’s environmental impacts and detailing whether there is a public need for the petroleum products Line 5 transports.

A Court of Appeals panel upheld the permit. The lawsuit rose to the Michigan Supreme Court, where the justices heard oral arguments in March.

Welch wrote that the commission also inconsistently considered greenhouse emissions from the pipeline as a whole in its harms analysis, and declined to consider other environmental risks — like oil spills — using that same scope.

“The inconsistencies in the PSC’s comparisons did not allow for such a ‘reasoned choice,’” Welch wrote. “The PSC incorrectly compared the environmental effects of alternatives that would fully replace Line 5 with the effects of the Replacement Project alone.”

The commission erred by failing to determine whether the project would pollute, impair, or destroy public trust resources, as well, Welch said.

As for the Court of Appeals’ error, Welch said the panel relied on state agency decision making, more specifically the commission’s Michigan Environmental Protection Act determination. It should have looked at the case without any deference toward the commission’s determination.

Bay Mills Indian Community President Whitney Gravelle said the ruling was “a reminder that when people stand together with courage and conviction, change is possible.”

“For years, Tribal Nations, communities, and thousands of people across the country have raised their voices to protect the Great Lakes,” Gravelle said in a statement. “This decision gives us another opportunity to honor our treaty rights, protect our waters, and consider the generations who will inherit this place.”

Gravelle said the Straits of Mackinac were not simply a route for an oil pipeline “to be abused. They are sacred waters, the heart of creation for Anishinaabe people, and a source of life for millions.”

“Some things are simply too sacred to be buried beneath a tunnel,” Gravelle added. “Our work continues, and we remain committed to protecting the Great Lakes for generations to come.”

Earthjustice and the Native American Rights Fund represented the various Tribes in challenging the permit.

“This ruling is an inspiring victory for Tribes, environmental advocates, and everyday people who’ve joined hands in the fight to stop the dangerous Line 5 tunnel project,” Earthjustice Senior Attorney Adam Ratchenski said in a statement. “The Court’s decision upholds the bedrock principles of Michigan environmental law. Enbridge’s application to build the tunnel now heads back to the Michigan Public Service Commission, where we will be prepared with robust arguments in defense of Tribal rights and the Great Lakes.”

One church congregation in New London includes many affected families. Its pastor said forcing people to return to Haiti is like “sending people to the butcher.”

The post How the loss of Temporary Protected Status is being felt by Haitian immigrants in Wisconsin appeared first on WPR.

A state appeals court has upheld the landmark collective bargaining law known as Act 10, likely sending the case challenging the law to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The post Appeals court upholds Act 10, likely sending case to Wisconsin Supreme Court appeared first on WPR.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A Wisconsin appeals court on Wednesday overturned a ruling that had restored abolished collective bargaining rights, in a setback for unions and public workers in the state. Unions are expected to appeal, sending the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is controlled by liberal justices.

The 2024 ruling striking down the law as unconstitutional had been on hold pending appeal, so Wednesday’s reversal does not change the status quo. The law remains in effect, as it has been the past 15 years, as the legal fight continues.

Enactment of a 2011 anti-union state law, championed by Republicans, sparked weeks of protests and made Wisconsin the center of a national battle over union rights.

That law, known as Act 10, effectively ended most public employees′ ability to bargain for wage increases and other issues and forced them to pay more for health insurance and retirement benefits.

Supporters of the law say it gives local governments more control over workers and the powers needed to cut costs. They argue that repealing the law, which allowed schools and local governments to raise money through higher employee contributions for benefits, would bankrupt those entities.

Opponents argue the law has hurt schools and government agencies by stripping employees of the right to collectively bargain over pay and working conditions.

Christina Brey, a spokesperson for the unions that brought the lawsuit, said they remain confident on the merits of the case and that they are considering all available options.

“Wisconsin is better when all employees have a say in our workplaces, whether about class sizes in our schools, safety on the job, hours or any other number of areas,” Brey said. “Public service workers across the state won’t stop until we regain free, fair and full collective bargaining rights to negotiate with our employers.”

Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who introduced and championed the law, praised the decision.

“This ruling is a major win for the hard-working taxpayers of Wisconsin and the people they elect to run our schools, state, and local governments,” Walker said in a text message.

All five of the Democratic candidates for governor this year have vowed to repeal the law if elected. The primary is Aug. 11.

Tens of thousands protested the anti-union law at the state Capitol

The law was Walker’s signature legislative achievement, catapulting him onto the national political stage and spurring an unsuccessful attempt to recall him from office. Walker used the furor to mount a brief, ill-fated run for president that ended in 2015.

The Republican-controlled Legislature approved the law despite the massive protests that went on for weeks and drew as many as 100,000 people to the state Capitol.

The law effectively ended collective bargaining for most public unions by allowing them to bargain solely over base wage increases no greater than inflation. It also disallowed the automatic withdrawal of union dues, required annual recertification votes for unions and forced public workers to pay more for health insurance and retirement benefits. It led to a dramatic decrease in union membership across Wisconsin.

The law has withstood numerous legal challenges over the years, but this is the first since the Wisconsin Supreme Court flipped to liberal control in 2023.

The lawsuit, filed by seven unions and three union leaders, argued Act 10 should be struck down because it creates unconstitutional exemptions for firefighters and other public safety workers. Attorneys for the Legislature and state agencies countered that the exemptions are legal and have already been upheld by other courts and that the case should be dismissed.

The Legislature said in court filings that arguments made in the current case were rejected in 2014 by the state Supreme Court. The only change since that ruling is the makeup of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, attorneys for the Legislature said.

Appeals court agrees with Republicans, questions timing of lawsuit

The three-judge appeals court panel ruled in a 2-1 decision to overturn a December 2024 ruling from Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost, saying the challenged provisions of the law did not violate equal protection guarantees of the Wisconsin Constitution.

The lower court “had no legal basis” to declare the law unconstitutional, the appeals court said.

The Wisconsin Legislature had a “rational basis” for only placing certain public safety workers under the law, the appeals court said.

“Courts must respect both precedent and our role in deferring to the Legislature’s fiscal policy decisions,” the appeals court said.

Appeals Court Judge Shelley Grogan said in a concurring opinion that the timing of the lawsuit was “to say the least, suspect.” The lawsuit was filed in November 2023, three months after the Wisconsin Supreme Court switched from majority conservative control to a majority of liberal justices.

“Renewed attempts to attack Act 10 on already-rejected bases simply because the composition of our supreme court has changed must be rejected,” Grogan wrote. “A law’s constitutionality does not ebb and flow with a court’s composition, and the judicial branch must not be used to advance political agendas on either side of the political spectrum.”

Appeals Court Judge Lisa Neubauer, the lone liberal on the three-judge panel, dissented, saying the lower court was correct. She said the Legislature made “arbitrary and irrational distinctions” by taking away collective bargaining rights from some public employees but not others.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Wisconsin appeals court overturns ruling that had restored collective bargaining power is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump reignited his tariff agenda Friday by imposing new import taxes on products from dozens of top U.S. trading partners, immediately replacing temporary global tariffs he levied after the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major blow to his sweeping “Liberation Day” duties.

As of Friday morning, American importers will now pay an extra 10% to 12.5% of a product’s value on most goods from nearly 60 countries, including Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, among dozens more. The tariffs could affect 99.4% of imports, according to U.S. trade authorities.

The fresh round of import taxes, first announced late Thursday afternoon, replace a blanket 10% tariff on global goods under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which expired at midnight Friday. Those tariffs invited new legal challenges, including from Democratic-led states.

The latest tariffs were imposed after the Office of the United States Trade Representative allegedly found forced labor conditions in all of the economies investigated under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

U.S. Trade Ambassador Jamieson Greer said in a statement Thursday that Trump “recognizes that decades of moral suasion have not eradicated forced labor from global supply chains.  The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same.”

Supreme Court ruling

The Office of the United States Trade Representative announced two broad investigations in March, less than one month after the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s unprecedented global tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, commonly called IEEPA. 

Shortly after the Supreme Court’s blow to his IEEPA tariffs, which he announced in early April 2025 on what he dubbed “Liberation Day,” the government was on the hook for roughly $166 billion in refunds to American importers who already paid the duties.

The latest batch of duties, in effect as of Friday, is the second round of import taxes the Trump administration announced this week. The White House introduced 50% tariffs on most Canadian imports Monday, triggering the duties under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

The Depression-era provision, which has never before been enforced, authorizes the president to impose duties up to 50% of a product’s value in response to discrimination against U.S. commerce.

States Newsroom has spoken with numerous small business owners since 2025 about the effects tariffs have on their capacity to keep prices steady, hire employees, invest in new equipment and inventory, and just generally remain in operation.

‘Ridiculously blunt’

Critics slammed the administration’s new series of sweeping duties on a large swath of the country’s imports.

Scott Lincicome, vice president for general economics at the libertarian Cato Institute, wrote Thursday the outcome of the Section 301 investigations were “clearly predetermined” and “both ridiculously blunt and wildly out of proportion to any measurable economic distortion.”

“And the whole thing establishes precedent for an ‘automatic tariff generator’ that Trump or a future president can deploy at will. It makes a mockery of a real issue and might poison legitimate reform. And Congress probably won’t do anything about it,” Lincicome wrote.

Some Republicans in the U.S. House rebuffed Trump’s tariff agenda in February, but legislative change has not emerged. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement Thursday the president has “has bled the inflation-battered American people dry with his tariffs.”

“Now he’s coming back for more. Trump’s chaotic tariff taxes have made life harder and more expensive for the American people. Families are paying more for everyday necessities. Small business owners are struggling to keep the lights on. Manufacturers are shedding jobs and farmers are getting squeezed. Meanwhile, Trump and his billionaire family and friends get richer on the backs of working families,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

The Yale Budget Lab estimates consumer prices could rise up to 1% under the new tariffs, increasing household costs by roughly $1,100.

If the duties remained in place, the U.S. would gain about $2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, though the number would likely be lower after accounting for negative impacts on the economy, according to the Yale Budget Lab.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision makes it easier for political parties to put their stamp on the most important campaigns, just as the struggle heats up for control of Congress in the midterm elections. 

Simply put, the ruling “gives the parties more money to spend,” said David Kolker, senior counsel at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.

In a 6-3 decision on June 30, the court struck down limits on how much political parties could spend in coordination with specific candidates.

But will it make a difference, particularly in mega-money Senate races in Ohio, Maine, Texas, Iowa and elsewhere? 

In sheer dollars from big donors, maybe not. In strengthening the role of political parties and how they use those dollars to help campaigns, yes.

“The idea there will be an explosion of money that’s not already going to be there, I don’t really see that. The super PAC money is already there,” said Brendan Glavin, director of insight at OpenSecrets.org, a nonpartisan group that tracks and analyzes money in politics. Super PACs can spend unlimited sums independent of campaigns.

Don Levy, Siena Research Institute director, saw evidence in July of how eagerly the parties could spend money — or yank it back. 

Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner’s now-defunct campaign was rocked by new allegations of sexual abuse, which he has denied. Siena conducts polls in Maine.

When the scandal broke, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand, both of New York, issued a terse three-sentence statement in response.

One of those sentences was: “The DSCC will not invest in the Maine Senate race if Platner remains on the ballot.” 

That indicated “money is top of mind” for the party, Levy said. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is seeking reelection in a state that Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris won in 2024 by 7 points.

The court and big money  

The Supreme Court has been methodically tearing down barriers aimed at limiting big money in politics.

In 2010, the Citizens United decision overturned decades-old restrictions on corporate independent expenditures, allowing them to spend unlimited sums from their corporate profits to support the candidates of their choice.

The ruling led to the creation of super PACs, allowing special interests to raise and spend unlimited funds to boost political candidates.

An analysis by Daniel Weiner, director, elections and government at the Brennan Center for Justice, found that their funding “largely comes from a small group of the very wealthiest donors.”

From 2010 to 2022, super PACs spent about $6.4 billion on federal elections. They spent an estimated $2.7 billion in the 2024 election.

There were, and are, limits on contributions to specific candidates and political parties. Super PACs cannot coordinate with campaigns. 

Until the Supreme Court ruling, there were limits on how much the parties could coordinate. Not anymore.

Parties have “complained about being outspent by the outside super PACs. Whether that’s true or not you could debate,” said Kolker. 

The court decision, though, makes it easier for big donors to funnel money to the parties, knowing the parties can now seamlessly direct the funds to candidates they feel need it most.

Republicans pushed for the ruling, with many in the GOP believing that Democrats had the advantage of obtaining more, often smaller, contributions to their candidates, while Republicans relied on bigger donors who felt more bound by contribution limits and restrictions.

Republicans hailed the decision.

“By striking down these unconstitutional caps on coordinated spending, the Court has restored core political speech and ensured parties can compete on a level playing field,” said a joint statement from Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina, who chairs the GOP’s House campaign committee.

Democrats saw things much differently. The ruling “is a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption,” said a joint statement from Democratic Party Chairman Ken Martin, Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., who heads the party’s House campaign committee, and Gillibrand.

Maine and other swing states for Senate control

Democrats need a net gain of four Senate and three House seats in November’s elections to win control of those chambers.

The biggest money is likely to pour into a handful of Senate races.

Maine has been a top Democratic target, though the turmoil over Platner’s candidacy makes it unpredictable.

It had been a competitive race. In the Siena/New York Times/Portland Press Herald poll June 19-26 poll, before the latest Platner controversy erupted, he led Collins by 2 points. Trump’s approval rating was 36%. 

Maine Democrats have until July 27 to choose a replacement for Platner, who left the race July 8.

The court ruling is “not going to be a huge game changer for the amount of money flowing into a competitive race. They already have super PAC money, and already have megadonors giving to parties,” said Glavin.

Money could matter more in Ohio, where big spending in 2024 – a non-presidential election record of $483.4 million, according to AdImpact – helped Republicans paint incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, as out of touch with the GOP-trending state. Brown lost to Republican businessman Bernie Moreno by 4 points.

“I think money made a difference last time as they drove up Brown’s negatives,” said Jessica Taylor, Senate and governors editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Brown now will be able to tap more party expertise and funding as he runs this year against Sen. Jon Husted, a Republican appointed to the seat in 2025 to replace Vice President JD Vance.

Iowa is a different sort of money battleground. “Money could make a big difference if Democrats spend there,” Taylor said. Democrats are trying to win the seat now held by Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican who is not seeking reelection. State Rep. Josh Turek, a Democrat, is running against U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson, a Republican.

Levy offered this example of where shifting party money could matter. Suppose polls hold up and former Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, remains favored to win a North Carolina Senate seat now held by Republican Thom Tillis, in his campaign against Republican Michael Whatley.

“The national party could say we’ll write off North Carolina because Cooper has a big lead and is extremely well known in the state. It would be difficult to beat him,” Levy said. Maybe they’d direct more money to Texas, where state Rep. James Talarico and Attorney General Ken Paxton were tied in last month’s Siena poll.

The court ruling gives “a lot more power to party leaders who control how these funds are spent,” said Kolker, and probably more clout to Congress itself, making it easier to impose party discipline.

Does big money matter? 

Experts are quick to warn that big money is no surefire guarantee of success.

There are just too many moving parts influencing voters – their economic situation, their views of President Donald Trump and their disillusionment with the political establishment, to name a few.

“You want to have a robust TV program but the political environment is still going to matter in a lot of these races,” said Taylor.

What often matters most for a candidate and a political party is building an image and reputation and sustaining it, which is why in election after election, incumbents usually win.

“There is still an incumbent advantage. There are cycles where voter discontent and frustration reaches a point where the only way to express your frustration is to vote against whoever is in power,” said Todd Eberly, professor of political science at St. Mary’s College of Maryland.

Maine provides a strong example of the advantages and disadvantages of money.

Collins has been a senator since 1997. “Collins will play to her strength. The people of Maine, regardless of what the left may say, they feel she has good moral character and is in touch with the values of Mainers,” Levy said.

Democrats will undoubtedly try to tie her to Trump and the Washington establishment. At the same time, he said, “Maine is an inexpensive state and money will fly in there to say Susan Collins is in tune with Maine.”

The race will be a test of all the factors that influence a race, financial and otherwise.

“Candidates who spend more, their probability of winning has increased significantly,” said Eberly. “With one exception. If you’re an incumbent, it (big spending) doesn’t make much of a difference.”