-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday allowing President Trump’s executive order on mail voting to go forward is stunningly insensitive to the context: Trump is trying to exercise control over elections when he has absolutely no authority to do so. In one sense, the justices decided nothing, simply saying it was too soon for federal courts to get involved. But in a more important way, the court could have and should have put an emphatic end to the president’s efforts to try to regulate voting operations that are legally the domain of state governments.
The context for the Supreme Court’s ruling is Trump’s repeated assertion that noncitizens are illegally voting in the United States. However, many studies done on this topic have come to the same conclusion: Instances of noncitizens voting are extremely rare.
One study from 2017, by the Brennan Center for Justice, looked at 42 jurisdictions across which more than 23.5 million votes were cast, and found only 30 instances in which there were investigations into noncitizens voting — or 0.0001% of ballots cast.
Utah did an exhaustive review of its entire voter list from April 2025 through January 2026. After looking at more than 2 million registered voters, it found only one instance of a noncitizen registering to vote and zero instances of a noncitizen actually voting. In Georgia, a 2024 audit of its 8.2 million registered voters found only 20 noncitizens who had registered.
In 2025, Trump issued an executive order requiring that states verify a person’s citizenship in order for the individual to register to vote. A federal district court quickly enjoined this order, explaining that the president has no authority whatsoever over voter registration.
Trump then turned to Congress and urged it to pass the SAVE Act, which would require that individuals provide proof of citizenship when registering and show photo identification at the time of voting. It would require voters submitting absentee mail-in ballots to provide a photocopy of their ID. And the bill would mandate that states share voter registration data with the federal government, which most states have refused to do. It would also create personal criminal liability for election officials who violate the law.
Although the House of Representatives passed a version of the SAVE Act in February, it has died in the Senate, where there is no chance of getting the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster and pass the bill. Undaunted, the Trump administration drafted Executive Order 14399, which does three things. It orders the secretary of Homeland Security to create and send citizenship lists to each state. It requires the U.S. attorney general “to prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of state and local officials or any others” who issue ballots to ineligible voters. And it orders the U.S. Postal Service to engage in proposed rulemaking to restrict the delivery of absentee ballots.
A federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against this executive order as an unconstitutional effort by the president to control the states’ election processes. The federal court of appeals upheld the preliminary injunction. But in Trump vs. California, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling on its emergency docket, reversed the lower courts and allowed the executive order to remain in place, for now.
The court’s ruling was entirely procedural, saying this is not the right way or time to challenge this executive order. The justices explained that no one was hurt by the Department of Homeland Security compiling a list of citizens who are eligible to vote or by the president instructing the Justice Department to prosecute election officials who allow ineligible voters to cast ballots.
The court also said that the U.S. Postal Service had not yet issued regulations so it was too soon to challenge them, and explained that it “is not a proposed rule, let alone a final rule.” The court ended its opinion by clarifying that its ruling does not mean that it will find the executive order to be lawful, just that it cannot review it now.
But the problem with this analysis is that it ignores the context that Trump is attempting to do something he has no constitutional authority to do. The very title of the executive order, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” makes clear that Trump’s purpose is to try to force by executive order what he could not get Congress to pass. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said in her dissent, the executive order “involves the President, whom the Constitution vests with no express authority over elections, undertaking a substantial and unfunded overhaul of election practices.”
The court’s ruling is especially disingenuous because on Friday, the Postal Service did promulgate regulations limiting the use of the mail for delivering absentee ballots. The case is now very much ripe for review. With the midterm elections now less than three months away, delaying ruling on the executive order only creates confusion as to what rules will be followed.
This is why the Supreme Court should have upheld the preliminary injunction stopping Trump’s executive order. As Jackson powerfully said at the conclusion of her dissent: “When the Government’s obvious goal is to interfere with the Plaintiff States’ practices and prerogatives in a manner that the Constitution does not authorize, it is both a serious legal error and a grave misuse of our equitable emergency powers to let the Executive proceed even one step further.”
Erwin Chemerinsky is the dean of the UC Berkeley Law School.
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on the emergency docket to let President Trump’s mail-voting executive order take effect, for now, is a serious failure to confront an attempted presidential takeover of election administration, because it treats the dispute as a narrow procedural question rather than recognizing that the president has no constitutional authority to control how states run elections.
Building on the constitutional framework, the piece contends that election administration — including voter registration and the rules for casting and counting ballots — belongs to the states and, to a lesser extent, Congress, not the president, noting that legal analyses describe the federal election system as highly decentralized and emphasize that the executive branch has no independent power to change who votes or how votes are cast and counted[1][2][5].
The article stresses that Trump’s campaign against alleged noncitizen voting rests on claims that have been repeatedly debunked, pointing to studies — such as Brennan Center research examining more than 23.5 million votes in 2016 and finding only about 30 suspected cases of noncitizen voting — that conclude such incidents are “vanishingly rare” and represent roughly 0.0001% of ballots cast[6][7][8].
The piece argues that Trump first sought to impose stricter proof-of-citizenship and voter ID rules through Congress via the SAVE Act, which would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register for federal elections and photo identification to vote; after that measure stalled in the Senate, the article maintains that Trump turned to executive power to achieve through unilateral action what could not gain sufficient legislative support[18][15][11].
The article describes Executive Order 14399 as an aggressive and unconstitutional effort to reshape elections, highlighting provisions that direct the Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit lists of adult U.S. citizens to each state, instruct the Justice Department to prioritize investigations and prosecutions of officials who issue ballots to ineligible voters, and push the U.S. Postal Service toward rulemaking that would restrict the mailing and delivery of absentee ballots[12][16][19].
The piece criticizes the Supreme Court majority for finding the case unripe on the ground that no one has yet been harmed by the federal citizenship lists or enforcement directives and that USPS had not finalized regulations, arguing that this ignores both the president’s lack of authority over election operations and the practical reality that midterm elections are only months away, making delay likely to sow confusion about the rules for mail voting[20][4].
The article highlights Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent, which describes the order as a “substantial and unfunded overhaul of election practices” undertaken by an official given no express constitutional role in elections, and concludes that allowing the executive branch “even one step further” when its obvious goal is to interfere with states’ prerogatives is a grave misuse of the Court’s emergency powers — a view the piece endorses as a warning that the Court should have upheld the lower courts’ preliminary injunction.
Different views on the topic
In contrast, election-integrity advocates at conservative organizations argue that voter fraud, including ineligible voting by noncitizens, is a serious and ongoing problem, pointing to collections of more than 1,100 documented fraud cases across dozens of states and asserting that these incidents show the need to “secure our elections” through tougher safeguards, rather than leaving current systems in place[9][10].
These commentators maintain that even relatively small numbers of improper registrations or ballots — such as instances where administrative “processing errors” have led to noncitizens being registered to vote — highlight systemic vulnerabilities, and they contend that such problems justify requirements for government-issued photo identification and proof of citizenship as routine checks to protect the integrity of federal elections[9][10].
Supporters of proof-of-citizenship legislation like the SAVE Act describe documentary requirements — including REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses that indicate citizenship, valid U.S. passports, certified birth certificates, or naturalization documents — as neutral, objective standards that apply to all would-be voters and are intended to prevent noncitizens from registering rather than to disenfranchise eligible citizens[18][15][17].
Policy analyses sympathetic to strict verification measures argue that clearly defined lists of acceptable documents and alternative procedures for applicants who lack standard records can balance access and security, suggesting that such frameworks can reduce opportunities for fraud while still providing paths to registration for eligible voters who may face paperwork barriers[17][18].
Some defenders of Trump’s mail-voting order and related efforts frame federal involvement as an appropriate extension of Washington’s role in supporting state election security, emphasizing that federal agencies already help states combat election fraud, protect voting systems, and share information, and arguing that using federal databases to verify citizenship and directing USPS to handle only ballots tied to verified voter lists are tools to ensure absentee ballots reach only eligible voters[3][4][12].
Administration officials and sympathetic commentators have described the order’s provisions — including DHS-generated citizenship lists and USPS requirements for barcoded “Official Election Mail” envelopes — as mechanisms to modernize and standardize mail-voting procedures nationwide, asserting that these steps will make it easier to track ballots, prevent misuse of the mail for fraudulent voting, and bolster public confidence in election results[13][14][16].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
The latest effort is coming from the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. They just announced a $3 million program in conjunction with some nonprofits groups to test and clean the soil at homes still standing in the areas impacted by the Eaton Fire.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
