Polygraph

The Supreme Court ruled that the administration cannot implement the voting executive order for the midterms.

Posted by The Lawfare Podcast, Checked

Polygraph verdictMixed
Sources
6 contradict2 support1 context
Said
1 time·
Confidence
45%
The Lawfare PodcastOct 8, 2026
View on Podcast ↗
Video frame
61 claimsThe check →

The sources conflict on what the Supreme Court actually did. The August 24, 2026 ruling lifted a block and let parts of the executive order proceed, which contradicts a claim that the administration cannot implement it for the midterms.

What was said

… course, on this voting executive order that the President put out in March, that focused largely, or kind of what people viewed as the most nefarious part of which had to do with mail-in voting and the Postal Service not transmitting some people's ballots, the Supreme Court said you can't do that, at least for the midterms, and that doesn't really answer whether we should still be worried about that kind of thing for 20 28, but does show that we're good for the midterms. Similarly, the administration was trying to have states be able to search this database, the SAVE database, which is actually different from the SAVE Act, even though they're both related to elections, and purge voter rolls based on that, and they …
The Lawfare Podcast · · from the transcriptPost →

What we found

Contradicts. AP, NPR, ABC, CNN, Votebeat and Des Moines Register report that on August 24, 2026 the Supreme Court stayed the lower-court injunction, allowing parts of Trump's executive order to move forward, and did not rule on its legality.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

Supports. ProPublica (September 16) and Reuters (November 2) say the Supreme Court in September rejected the administration's push for new mail-voting rules before the midterms, and the 'Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits' order is quoted.[1][8]

Context. The USPS provision requiring ballot withholding from people not on a government list remains blocked nationwide by a separate lower-court ruling, so the mail-voting element is partly constrained for the midterms while other parts are not.[4][7]

Context. Scripps reports the Court ruled 6-3 that the states lacked standing, and explicitly did not rule on the overall legality of the order.[9]

Sources

9 sources: 1 fact-checker, 1 primary, 2 tier 2, 5 not rated

  1. 1Trump administration takes California ballot fight to Supreme Courtreuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
  2. 2Attorney General Bonta Responds to U.S. Supreme Court ...oag.ca.gov · primary source · cited for: contradicts
  3. 3Supreme Court gives Trump an interim win on his mail voting order, but hurdles loomnpr.org · tier 2 · cited for: contradicts
  4. 4Supreme Court allows Trump to implement parts of his mail-in voting executive orderabcnews.com · not rated · cited for: contradicts, context
  5. 5Supreme Court backs Trump's order to curb mail ballotsus.cnn.com · not rated · cited for: contradicts
  6. 6Supreme Court lifts 1 of 2 blocks on Trump’s mail-voting ...votebeat.org · not rated · cited for: contradicts
  7. 7Supreme Court gives Trump win in mail ballot dispute, but fight continuesdesmoinesregister.com · not rated · cited for: contradicts, context
  8. 8Can I Vote By Mail in the 2026 Midterm Elections? What to ...propublica.org · tier 2 · cited for: supports
  9. 9What's next after Supreme Court clears path for Trump mail ...scrippsnews.com · not rated · cited for: context

Where this claim was made

Said in 1 published post

How Polygraph checks a claim

Our Weekly Newsletter

The Readout

The week's most-shared posts, checked. What they claimed, how they argued, and what held up.

Unsubscribe any time. See our privacy policy.