“Blockbuster!” Federal judge drops BOMBSHELL late night ruling against Trump

We have now got the decision that we. have been waiting for from a judge as. far as Donald Trump's executive order. trying to ban mail-in ballots are. concerned. Mark, can you explain what. just happened late at night at the hands. of a judge? >> Yeah, breaking news. A federal district. court judge in Massachusetts has. blocked, on at least a temporary basis, the Trump executive order provision that. triggered the rule making by the US. Postal Service that would make it harder. for people to be able to vote by mail. This is a blockbuster decision because.

we have been in this back and forth. between various federal courts, the. Supreme Court, the trial courts. I mean, this has been a a roller coaster back. and forth. And we are only, you know, a. few weeks before states have to send out. these mail-in ballots. So, every time. there is a change of the status quo, and. I want to come back to that word in a. second, it is monumental at this point. Why do I say status quo? Because right. now, the status quo is that the US.

Postal Service may not go forward in. implementing this rule, which means. every hour of every day, every day of. every week from this point forward, they. are not moving forward. States are. moving forward with their existing plans. for mail-in voting. And like I said, we. are in the final days before those. mail-in ballots actually have to start. going out to voters. So, it becomes. harder and harder to change the status. quo for courts because doing so has.

dramatic consequences. So, very. important good news as we sit here. today, big decision from the district. court in Massachusetts. But, Brian, as. you and I both know, this fight is not. over. >> So, let's talk about what next steps are. here. If Judge Talwani, who issued the. temporary restraining order, the TRO, um. s- i- is the one that's dictating the. speed of this trial, doesn't that judge. in effect get to determine whether.

Donald Trump's executive order is going. to be in place? Because if there's not. enough time to actually litigate this. thing on the merits, allow Trump to win, and then of course achieve the Herculean. feat of fixing all of the election. infrastructure before midterms, then. like it's going to stay status quo. So, isn't that judge in effect the person. that's going to determine whether. Trump's executive order is going to. stand? >> So, Brian, I wrote about this very topic. this morning for Democracy Docket. Now, there are a couple of cards that each.

side has to play. So, let's first start, as you say, with the pro-voting side, right? They have an injunction. issued by a federal judge that has. blocked the Postal Service. By the way, the judge actually issued a TRO in both. cases before her, which means it has. nationwide effect. Uh and so, that is. obviously a very powerful, you know, card that the pro-voting forces have. Now, a second thing which has escaped. the attention of most observers, and.

this is the reason why you and I do this. series, uh is that a TRO is not immediately. appealable. Right? Normally, a TRO, because it is limited in for only being. in effect for a few days, it is not. actually considered to be an injunction. in the way in which we we think about. them that are appealable. So, that means. that the judge, as you say, is in the. driver's seat, right? At least for the. next few days before she holds a hearing.

and decides the preliminary injunction. Now, the preliminary injunction would be. appealable, but again, every day that. goes by, you you get the drift, right? It it it makes it harder. On the. government side, on the DOJ side, they've got a couple of cards. The first. is they will likely say, "This is not. really a TRO. This is really a. preliminary injunction. Like this is a. This is a a a a stealth. final order that can be appealable. And.

we don't have to sit even for a few days. with this given that Brian, as you point. out, those days are precious and and so. So they will likely go to the first. circuit in the near term and ask the. first circuit to block this TRO. Which brings me to their second card. Normally, in the way in which our court. system is supposed to work, you have the. federal trial court, you know, rule on a. preliminary injunction that then gets.

appealed to the first circuit. The first. circuit has briefing and argument and. that then gets appealed to. um the Supreme Court. That is what we. are used to. That is what in fact we saw. in this case the first time. There are in emergency circumstances the. ability to basically bypass or at least. fast-track through that process and go. to the Supreme Court on an expedited. basis and say, "Look, Your Honor, we. don't have time to wait for all of these. lower processes to take place. We need.

to We need to go to you right away and. get an order from you right away.". Now, oftentimes those are for example. like death penalty cases, you know, where [laughter] like, you know, where. you can see why there is like, you know, there's no turning back. But you could. see the Department of Justice going to. the Supreme Court and saying, "Your. Honor, like this trial judge has. obviously, you know, overstepped her. bounds." I don't By the way, everyone, I. don't agree with this, but this is what. they'd say. Uh you know, she's obviously overstepped.

her bounds. The first circuit, you know, will simply take too much time. And this. is a question of national importance. that is eventually needs to be decided. by the Supreme Court and and if we don't. get that decision today, it's going to. prevent the US Postal Service from being. able to do its job for the 2026 midterm. elections. What happens there? Well, then you are. in the hands of a Supreme Court that on. the one hand has proven itself able to. move very fast. On the other hand, remember when this case first went to.

them uh from the last order from this. judge, they took several weeks to rule. And that's I suspect because of just the. logistics of them being gone for the. summer. And I know people don't think of. like the Supreme Court justices in that. way, but like who knows where they are? >> Who knows Who knows what yacht Clarence. Thomas is on right now, you know? [laughter]. >> So, I realize this is a long answer, but. I want I think we really owe it to our. audience here, Brian, because it is the. public service that this series and your.

channel does. Your ability to reach. millions of people is why I value our. partnership in this series. And I think. like laying this all out for them, I. think is really important. >> Well, to that end, and I appreciate. that. To that end, um for folks who are. looking for the the the most up-to-date. news on this topic in particular, I'm. going to put a link to Democracy Docket, which is the news outlet Mark founded to. focus on everything voting and. elections, right here on this screen. You were the first to break this story. That's where I got all of my information.

about this topic in particular, and it's. what I have been and will continue to. watch as this process continues to play. out and we see where things land as far. as Trump's executive order trying to ban. mail-in voting is concerned. So, again, if you're not yet subscribed to. Democracy Docket, that is the outlet you. need to be subscribed to as we head. toward midterms. Mark, there has been um a figure. floating around, and I believe it came. from the Postal Service itself, which is. 30%, and that's the possible rejection. rate if this whole plan is enacted. So,

can you speak about that figure and. whether we might see something as as. dire as a 30% mail ballot rejection rate. if Trump is successful here? >> Yeah, look, I think that people in some. ways are underestimating the threat. here, you know, and you mentioned the. the figures being put out by the Postal. Service. I think that unfortunately, the way in. which these issues have been presented. over the last few years by the legacy. media is a little bit of on the one. hand, on the other hand. Some say this, some say that. And in that sense, Brian,

it's it's sort of reminds me of what's. happened with the way in which the media. reports climate, right? Which is like. you have Donald Trump's people and. Republicans saying, you know, nothing to. see here, and meanwhile we're all seeing. natural disasters and record. temperatures and and and and science. This would be a mass disenfranchisement. event. Okay? Like if this rule goes into. effect, I can't tell you whether that 30% figure. is the right figure or not. But I I.

actually think it could be worse in some. states. I mean, I think there would be. entire states that may not be able to. comply at all, right? So you would have. essentially a 100% reduction rate in. states that simply did not have the. ability to reprint all of the materials. that they have been printing. I mean, one of the mistakes people make is they. think that states, you know, print. ballots. And and I and I use that as a. shorthand, also. In reality, localities. print ballots. I mean, a state like.

California will have thousands of. different iterations of the the ballot, right? Sure, a Senate race or a. governor's race will be on all of them, but like the ballot in your town will be. different than the ballot in a few towns. over because you have local races that. differ. And so, the task of literally. compiling, printing, proofing, approving, and then getting out these. ballots is is really enormous. And so, is it 30%? Maybe. Is it, you know, a.

little lower? Or is it higher? And I. don't know, but it's but it's going to. be a like I said a mass. disenfranchisement effect if in fact. this is put forward. I have in recent. days been contacted by some election. experts and officials who simply say. they don't think they can meet it at. all. Like, you know, in their in their. jurisdiction or they they are predicting. failures, which will mean Brian that the. courts at that point would have to make.

a choice to essentially and the postal. service have to make a choice to either. let these ballots go out that don't. comply with the rule. or not. And you can see either way. Donald Trump taking advantage of this. If they don't go out, then obviously he. wins on that front. If they go out, then. he's just going to say it's all fraud. Right? He's going to say it's all fraud, which is why it's essential that the. courts block this as it's been done, that the Supreme Court affirm that. decision if it gets to them and they. decide to rule because this is not like. the usual nonsense that we see from.

Republicans. This is much much more. serious. >> You had mentioned the prospect of a mass. disenfranchisement event. Is there some. concern that if you have a Supreme Court. that is ideologically aligned with. Donald Trump who. isn't just afraid of the byproduct of a. mass disenfranchisement event, but. expressly wants a mass. disenfranchisement event? Is there some. concern that that because that actually. aligns with their political agenda and. their party's political agenda that.

that's exactly what they're going to be. seeking? >> Of course I'm worried. Like, I worry. about everything at this time of the. election cycle. I mean, I wake up. worried, I go to sleep worried, I I read. briefs worried, I do videos with you. worried. Like, I I you know, I I I don't. live in a state of of of of um you know, of calm, right? You know, Brian and I. talk a lot off air and he'll tell you. like you know, this is this these are. these are worrisome times. And it is. particularly the case that where you.

have as you say a Supreme Court that has. done some pretty dramatic things. I mean. giving the President of the United. States absolute immunity, we have seen. the consequences of that. You know, the the Supreme Court striking. down the Voting Rights Act and then. essentially green-lighting and. expediting. red states in the South disenfranchising. black voters. Like, you know, I was on I. I was on videos with you saying I think. that they will not do that in a way that. will disrupt it for 2026 and then they. did it in a way that was disruptive for. 2026. So, I'm not going to say that this.

is a foregone conclusion that the. court's come out our way. But, I'll also. say this, we cannot be fatalist the. other way, right? We cannot give the. Supreme Court a permission structure to. do the wrong thing by us all agreeing. that of course they'll do the wrong. thing. We need to insist that the courts. protect democracy. We need to insist. that the Supreme Court protect voting. rights. You know, the Supreme Court more. than 100 years ago said that the right. to vote is preservative of all other. rights and that is more true today than. it has ever been before. So, look, you. and I do this series. I hope everyone.

subscribes to this channel because this. is going to be the place where you're. going to get this kind of breaking news, but also this kind of insight I hope. from me and from Brian. So, I want to. make sure everyone subscribes to this. channel and also. hits the bell because that's the way. you'll get alerted when there's new. content. >> Perfect place to leave off. Again, I'm. going to remind you in addition to. subscribing to this channel so that you. can see more episodes of Democracy. Watch. Make sure to subscribe to. Democracy Docket, which is Mark's news. outlet. It has never been more important. than right now to make sure that you are.

up to date on exactly what's happening. because this news is moving fast and it. has major implications for our ability. to vote moving toward midterms. So, I'm. going to put both of those links right. here on the screen. I'm Brian Tyler. Cohen. >> I'm Mark Elias. >> This is Democracy Watch. >> [music].