Updates About Supreme Court Rulings

Recently, the United States Supreme Court refused the federal government’s attempt to place restrictions on U.S. Postal Service main-in ballots ahead of the November election.

In an unsigned order, the Court denied the Trump administration’s emergency request to suspend a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court that had blocked the administration’s attempted rule changes. The order was not a final ruling on the USPS authority to hand down restrictions; but instead, allows all states to keep their current mail-in voting procedures and prevents any restrictions for the 2026 election while the legal battle is ongoing.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately that the USPS likely has the authority to implement the restrictions but questioned whether the changes could be implemented before the election given the limited timeframe. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas were the only two justices to publicly dissent from the Court’s order.

The original rule change issued by the USPS would have made immediate changes to mail-in voting just over two months before the election date. The changes would have required states to enroll every eligible mail ballot voter with the Postal Service, which would use that data to create state voter rolls. Under the changes, states would have needed Postal Service approval for outgoing and return ballot envelope designs, in which each ballot would have its own unique barcode. The USPS would then have the ability to refuse the delivery of ballots if the voter was not included on its lists or if the envelopes did not meet the new requirements.

This week, both the Michigan and U.S. Supreme Courts rejected separate legal challenges that sought to put a proposed constitutional amendment addressing citizenship verification and voter identification on the November election ballot, ending the initiative’s chances this year.

The group behind the initiative, Americans for Citizens Voting Michigan, submitted nearly 710,000 signatures, well above the 446,198 required to be considered. However, upon review of a random sample of the signatures, the Bureau of Elections determined the campaign fell three valid signatures short for validity. The Board of State Canvassers then deadlocked over whether additional voter affidavits should be counted.

The group subsequently asked both courts to intervene and place the proposal on the ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene and did not state why. The Michigan Supreme Court declined to order the Board of State Canvassers to certify the proposal, and suggested that the Legislature review state law governing the timing and process for petition signature reviews.

A procedural mistake made during Lame Duck when nine passed bills were not presented to the Governor before concluding the 2023-2024 legislative session will finally be put to rest. While the 103rd Legislature was still settling in at the start of 2025, Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) made the strategic decision to refuse presenting to the Governor several bills passed during Lame Duck by the previous Democrat-majority House.

After more than a year of ambiguity, the Supreme Court announced last week that they will not be making a decision on the case, instead deferring to the Court of Appeals’ previous ruling. Under the lower court’s ruling, the Michigan House was required to present all nine bills to the Governor.

In a surprising twist, the Governor vetoed all nine bills on Friday. In her veto letter, Governor Gretchen Whitmer reasoned that the bills would create an administrative burden due to other conflicting laws that have since gone into effect, statutory deadlines that have expired, and fiscal impacts that were not accounted for in the newly passed FY 27 state budget.

The bills would have covered a range of issues, including requiring public employers to make greater contributions toward their employees’ health insurance, permission to seek a property tax millage for Detroit history museums, enter corrections officers into the State Police pension system, and offer protections for various public benefits from the threat of debt garnishment.

Related Articles: HOUSE MUST SEND 9 LEFTOVER BILLS FROM PREVIOUS LEGISLATURE TO THE GOVERNOR • SUPREME COURT: SENATE LAWSUIT OVER HOUSE BILLS WILL GO THROUGH USUAL LEGAL PROCESS • BRINKS SEEKS SUPREME COURT RULING AND MAKES SENATE RULE CHANGE IN ONGOING FIGHT OVER HOUSE BILLS • MICHIGAN HOUSE DECLINES TO SEND NINE BILLS TO GOVERNOR • SENATE DEMOCRATS FILE LAWSUIT AGAINST SPEAKER HALL