Stories

Browse major news stories and see what officials have said.

Sep 16, 2026· Updated

Three Weeks After Letting It Take Effect, the Supreme Court Reverses Course and Blocks Trump's Mail-In Ballot Rule 7-2 — Trump Calls the Two Dissenters "Legends Both" and Says His Own Appointees Are "a Shell of Their Original Selves," While Schumer Says His "Scheme Is Dead"

The Supreme Court on September 14 blocked the Postal Service mail-ballot rule at the center of Trump's March executive order — new envelope, tracking-barcode and voter-list requirements that critics said would disenfranchise voters with too little time before the midterms to implement. The order was 7-2, with only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting; none of Trump's three appointees, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, sided with the administration. Kavanaugh's concurrence found the rule likely had statutory backing in principle but was "arbitrary and capricious" to apply this close to the election. The ruling reverses the posture of an August 24 Supreme Court stay that had let the rule move forward, and is a sharp defeat for a policy the administration had defended as an anti-fraud measure. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the rule's "regulation of the U.S. mail — not federal elections — is plainly constitutional," while Trump attacked his own appointees on Truth Social as "merely a shell of their original selves" and praised the two dissenters as "legends both." Democrats, who had spent weeks warning the rule would suppress mail voting, celebrated the reversal. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said the president's "scheme is dead," and Colorado Sen. John Hickenlooper called the decision a rejection of Trump's latest "attempt to infringe on Americans' right to vote."

“These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves. The Court's inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our Country will go down, in a very negative way, in the annals of History.”
Donald Trump (R-FL) · Sep 16, 2026

The House Votes 212-206 to Write Nine Justices Into the Constitution — Nowhere Near the Two-Thirds It Needed, With Exactly One Democrat Voting Yes and Jim Clyburn Answering That "a Baker's Dozen Would Be a Good Number"

On September 2, 2026 the House voted 212-206 on H.J. Res. — the "Keep Nine Amendment" offered by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) — a proposed constitutional amendment reading that "The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices." A constitutional amendment needs two-thirds of the chamber, so a six-vote margin was not close; the resolution failed. The vote was the second of two messaging votes House Republican leaders scheduled in the run-up to the November midterms, paired with the resolution condemning socialism that passed 220-192 the day before. The premise of both was the same: force Democrats onto the record and use the answer in ads. On this one it worked in the narrow sense — every Republican voted yes and all but one Democrat voted no. Rep. Don Davis (D-NC), who represents a competitive eastern North Carolina district, was the lone Democratic yes. What the vote also documented is how far court expansion has traveled inside the Democratic Party since 2020. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), the former majority whip and about as institutional a Democrat as the House has, said on the record that Congress "ought to expand" the Court and that thirteen justices would be "a pretty good number." Democratic leaders framed their opposition in structural terms instead — House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) argued the amendment would strip Congress of an authority the Constitution assigns it — while Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the ranking Democrat on Judiciary, said plainly that the point was to lock in "the political court that MAGA built."

“They want to sacralize and constitutionalize nine because Donald Trump likes the fact that they overturned abortion rights.”
Jamie Raskin (D-MD) · Sep 6, 2026

supreme-court

constitutional-amendment

court-packing

8 statements

Sep 6, 2026· Updated

The Supreme Court Lets Trump's Mail-Voting Order Move Forward 71 Days Before the Midterms — "A Giant Leap Forward" or "A Dagger Into the Heart of Our Democracy"

On Monday, August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration an interim victory on its effort to restrict who receives a mail-in ballot before the November midterms. In an unsigned emergency-docket order that divided the justices along ideological lines, the Court lifted the injunction U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani entered in June, which had blocked key provisions of President Trump's March 2026 executive order from taking effect in the 23 states and the District of Columbia that sued — a group that includes Arizona, California, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of confirmed adult U.S. citizens in each state, requires states that use mail balloting to hand the federal government lists of every registered voter receiving a mail or absentee ballot in a federal election, and instructs the U.S. Postal Service to decline to deliver mail ballots from states that do not comply. The Postal Service issued its final rules on August 22, adding new ballot design standards and serialized barcodes on outgoing and return envelopes. The majority wrote that its "disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, warning the decision creates a "Kafkaesque nightmare" that "needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote that the order "merely postpones adjudication" of whether the president may direct the administration of a state-run election at all. The ruling does not end the litigation. A second injunction Talwani issued on August 11 in a suit brought by the League of Women Voters and Democratic Party committees blocks the order nationwide and remains in force, and the states have said they will challenge the Postal Service's new rules. Democratic senators, governors and attorneys general cast the decision as sanctioning voter suppression weeks before ballots go out; Republicans who have long pushed to curb mail voting called it a win for election security and renewed their push for the SAVE America Act.

“We'll use every tool in our toolbox to ensure they know the truth about our elections. We'll follow the law. We'll protect the right to vote.”
Jocelyn Benson (D-MI) · Sep 6, 2026

Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship 6-3, Strikes Down Trump Order (Trump v. Barbara, June 2026)

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Barbara that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, striking down President Trump's Day-1 executive order that sought to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented or temporary-status parents. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson, holding that such children are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and are citizens at birth; Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment on statutory grounds, while Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented. Trump called the decision "too bad for our Country" and urged Congress to pass legislation restricting birthright citizenship, promising his "Complete and Total Support." The ruling drew celebration from Democrats and calls from Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, for legislation or a constitutional amendment.

“The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation... No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship... They will have my Complete and Total Support!”
Donald Trump (R-FL) · Jun 30, 2026

scotus

birthright-citizenship

immigration

8 statements

May 8, 2026

Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down Voter-Approved Redistricting Amendment

On May 8, 2026, the Virginia Supreme Court voted 4-3 to strike down a voter-approved constitutional amendment that would have redrawn Virginia's congressional map to give Democrats an advantage in 10 of the state's 11 seats. The court ruled that Democratic lawmakers violated procedural requirements by holding the first vote on October 31, 2025, after early voting had already begun — with roughly 40% of ballots already cast — depriving over 1.3 million Virginians of the opportunity to weigh the issue when choosing their representatives. The ruling leaves the existing 6-5 Democratic congressional map in place for the 2026 midterm elections. Virginia Democrats immediately appealed to the US Supreme Court, asking the high court to reinstate the congressional map.

“Virginia Democrats' corrupt scheme to rig the map has been crushed in court, restoring fairness and protecting the future of the Commonwealth. The NRCC was proud to lead and fund this fight to uphold the Virginia Constitution and protect fair representation, and this win is yet another sign Republicans have the momentum heading into November. We're on offense, and we're going to win.”
Richard Hudson (R-NC) · May 8, 2026

Supreme Court Guts Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais

On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Louisiana v. Callais that Louisiana's congressional map creating a second majority-Black district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, effectively gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion for the six conservative justices, holding that states can almost never use race as a factor when drawing maps to comply with the VRA — including when doing so is intended to remedy prior discrimination. The ruling rewrites the standard for bringing a Section 2 claim in a way that critics say makes it nearly impossible to use the law to protect minority voting rights in redistricting. The decision carries sweeping national implications. Analysts predict it could allow Republican-controlled legislatures across the South to redraw congressional maps before the 2026 midterms in ways that reduce minority representation, potentially shifting as many as 19 additional seats into the GOP column. Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves called a special session beginning around May 20 to redraw state Supreme Court districts. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp said the ruling requires Georgia to draw new maps before 2028 but declined to call a special session for 2026. Civil rights groups called it the most devastating blow to voting rights in generations.

“The Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais restores fairness to our redistricting process and allows states to pass electoral maps that reflect the will of the voters, not the will of federal judges. It is clear that Callais requires Georgia to adopt new electoral maps before the 2028 election cycle.”
Brian Kemp (R-GA) · May 1, 2026

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trump Birthright Citizenship Order

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 1, 2026 in Trump v. Barbara, challenging President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship. Trump became the first sitting president to attend oral arguments. A majority of justices, including Trump appointees Barrett and Gorsuch, expressed strong skepticism. A decision is expected by the end of June 2026.

“We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow 'Birthright' Citizenship!”
Donald Trump (R-FL) · Apr 1, 2026

supreme-court

birthright-citizenship

14th-amendment

7 statements