🚨SCOTUS Sends Trump 2028 WARNING…

Did the United States Supreme Court not. just issue a decision regarding the 2026. election blocking Donald Trump schemes, but did they send a broader message. about where this country is heading in. 2028 and how the Supreme Court would. rule if and when Donald Trump tries to. scheme to come up with another plan in. order to interfere with the 2028. election. By now, you know, the Supreme. Court in a 7-2 decision blocked Donald.

Trump's uh US Postal Service scheme to. effectively change the way mail ballots. would be handled by the US Postal. Service. You see, the postal service was. given some broad immunities by Congress. believing that the postal service was. the postal service. So the usual type of. administrative procedures act challenges. shouldn't really apply to the postal. service because it's about delivering. mail. I don't think Congress envisioned.

that you would have an authoritarian. president like uh Donald Trump say you. know how I'm going to get around all of. this uh states right stuff. I'm going to. say because the postal service has broad. immunities as an agency. I'm gonna have. them just say, "We're only gonna deliver. ballots if they match Donald Trump's. voter list." And if they match the way. Donald Trump says you need to put the. pieces of the puzzle together and. package your ballot in the Trump way, and he has discretion, he could.

disqualify one ballot or a whole batch. of ballots if they taint what he. describes as the Trump US Postal Service. process. But it's just the mail and the. postal service gets immunity, right? Well, two different district court. judges. One in Massachusetts, an Obama. appointee, Judge Talwani, another Trumpo. Trump appointed judge in the district. court of Washington DC, Judge Carl. Nichols. They both said this is what's. called ultravirus. This is so outside.

the scope of what the postal service. does. Yeah, they get immunities when it. comes to delivering the mail, but. they're intruding on freaking state. rights when it comes to time, place, and. manner of elections. So, two different. district court judges, Obama and a Trump. appointee, both agreed. Trump does this. emergency petition to the Supreme Court. A 7-2 decision, right? So, in a 7-2. decision, that means you had multiple. right-wing justices join with the. liberal justices. So, you had Justice.

Gorsuch, Justice Coney Barrett, Justice. John Roberts, the uh Chief Justice, and. Justice Kavanaaugh. They side with the. three liberal justices. No big surprise. here that Justice Alto and Justice. Thomas are in the descent and they. basically say the postal service has. this immunity. That's how they tried to. frame it. So you can't challenge it. We. can say this is so outside the bounds. It's just they they they kind of play. dumb. They're like it's just the postal.

service portal. It's just the way they. design the mail when it comes to ballots. and there's probably not standing. So. that's how they tried to kind of do it. They they did which is oh which is total. weak sauce but I want to quue you in on. what their scheme is. Right. And then. Justice Kavanaaugh in a concurring uh. opinion with the majority said I think. we're too close to the 2026 election but. I may ultimately agree with Alo and. Thomas but I think we're arbitrary and.

capriccious implementing this now. because it would cause chaos in the 2026. election. But then you had no other uh. justice give any notable concurrence or. any notable statement. Then it was just. an unsigned order. So we're left with. kind of the overall view that it seems. that let's just peel off for a second. and say Kavanaaugh in 2028 will side. with Alto and Thomas. We don't know that. to be the case, but assume his. concurring says I'm just concurring with.

the majority because we're so close to. the election. So move him into Alto. Thomas Kavanaaugh and we don't really. know where Justice Gorsuch or Coney. Barrett are. I think we know where. Justice Roberts is. Um but let's just. say we even lose Gorsuch and Gorsuch. then goes over to Kavanaaugh Alo Thomas. right that gives us four which I don't. think we will. I think that if Gorsuch. felt the way Kavanaaugh did he would. have joined Kavanaaugh's concurring.

Same thing with Coney Barrett. Same. thing with Roberts. So, I think here's. where we're at. And I think this is why. the decision looked the way it did. because I think they wanted to show. visually that the Trump position won't. have the votes in 2028 either. And so. that's why whether you view it as a 7-2. or a 6-3 or even a 5 to4, I think the. statement is if the postal service.

intrudes. in this area of states rights over. elections, there'll be at least five. justices at le I think I feel. comfortable saying that that won't let. the same scheme go through in 2028, even. if Trump tries to adjust it with the. postal service to make it more. accommodating to what Kavanaaugh wanted. So, let me bring in Harry Litman from. the Talking Feds YouTube Substack and. podcast. Harry, great to see you. So, that's how I kind of see this issue. There's the immediate ramification of it.

and then I think there's a message being. sent in this very short opinion about. looking ahead in 2028. What What do you. make of it, Harry? >> Look, I think that's pretty trenching. There are some things that are a little. bit hard to interpret with certitude. Gorsuch might be one of them. But this. very short opinion you mentioned, one. paragraph, we've had opinions from the. Supreme Court that have simply said, "We're not going to grant the stay." Or. they've said, "You don't uh have such.

and such a factor." This little. paragraph had two sentences. They wrote. them both and they didn't have to. They. wrote the second sentence, the. government fails to uh prevail on the. other three factors in a stay analysis, a reparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest. But the first. sentence, the government is unlikely to. succeed on the merits. That really is.

five anyway. Six possibly saying you. lose. This is, you know, before when. they had this case up there, they just. said uh it wasn't ripe yet or whatever. But here they focused on the merits and. then they could have said nothing about. the merits because they say nothing. about nothing or nothing about the. merits because they focus on the other. factors. And in particular, and I know. this gets a little inside baseball, but.

the mightest mighty and fed heads can. handle it. The balance of equities was a. really strong factor here. Some very. powerful briefs have come in and said, "You don't have to think about the. merits court because if this rule goes. into effect, it's going to be a complete. bedum." Well, the way the USPS. whistleblower put it, show in the. whole country and it would just be a. disaster. Kind of what Kavanaaugh was. saying in his APA analysis.

and that would have been enough. So, it. is yeah really important and booing that. five of them said now it's a stay, right? So they didn't say you don't have. the power, but they came within a within. a, you know, a kissing cousin of saying. that when they said the government is. unlikely to succeed. So I think that. that was big. Now back to uh Kavanaaugh. You're right. You can see him going the.

other way. I do want to point out he. went under the APA and both Alo and. Thomas said you can't do that. So. there's already a conflict in what could. be the the dissenting side. But the. headline I think I have a substack that. I wrote today and this was the first. point is they rule on the merits and if. next year uh as you have to imagine is. certain the administration dust it off.

and tries to put it into effect it's the. same merit. So, I think they could try, probably will try to uh, you know, sculpt it a little, change it around, but if they don't, they're going into, uh, at least five justices who did not. have to say that the power isn't there. and said it anyway. That was, I think, a. really important and powerful uh,

statement. And you know, we've seen um. uh shadow docket cases where they've. gone for the government, especially in. the election area. People were biting. their nails because of it. I think you. recall you and I talked about it and. thought that in fact it it was likely to. go the way it did. Couldn't say for. sure, Supreme Court, but that was our. basic prediction and it was correct. And. I think the court here is just saying,

you know, build the ballroom, do all these things, but you're we're talking about. completely blowing the election to. smitherreens in a way, you could say, kind of ending the American experiment. as we know it, being in a position where. nobody knows who won, whatever. Trump. loves that idea. He he sifts through the. rubble and tries to somehow emerge with. the, you know, more powerful. But. imagine if he so screws with elections.

that we have just an indecipherable. chaos on our hands. I think the court. looked soberly at that prospect and said. that's something we can't countenance. >> Everybody, please subscribe to Harry. Litman's YouTube channel. It's called. Talking Feds. Search Talking Feds. Subscribe. Harry, thanks for everything. and all the work that you do. And leave. a comment on Harry's YouTube channel,

Talking Feds, that Ben says hello. I I. wanted to give, you know, look, it's. it's it's it's easy, but we do it, I. think, detailed ways to say here's what. happened in the opinion, but we want to. also think long term about what the. implications are. as you and I analyzed. the Missouri state decision. Exactly. That was pertending to what was gonna. happen here. Yep. >> And you and I, I think, in the. professorial way in some of last week's.

videos, really kind of built a chart of. how to look at the Supreme Court's. rulings. Personal cases involving Trump. and sexual assault. They stay away from. agency cases. They'll give Trump the. rulings he wants, unless it involves the. Federal Reserve, despite us not liking. that. On core constitutional questions, states rights, birthright, citizenship, some basic stuff, they'll deny him that. Um, but otherwise, they seem to be very.

frustratingly, you know, ruling in his. favor on a lot of issues. But there are. this what what do they call it. sometimes? The outer perimeter is their. own, right? They they have an outer. perimeter where they rule against him. and in that outer perimeter it's been. occupied by these few narrow areas. Those personal cases that they're kind. of grossed out by and they don't want to. touch the election states rights cases. and birthrights. That that's my take on.

it. How I would teach a class sadly in. this era of what I think is a very. corrupt and extremist court. That's all. I got for you. >> Yeah. No, no, no. That's a lot. And. look, I'll just say again, it's partly. you could call it constitutional, but. it's also practical. I think they were. looking at the uh complete chaos and. unknowability of what happens in. election. Talk about a constitutional. crisis. We've moved well past um that.

area. But I mean, in a democracy, the. election happens and the you have to. shrug your shoulders, then you're really not in a democracy, right? And um you know, they they were. not going to let Trump write the. democracy's epitap. Let's put it that. way. >> Everybody, please subscribe to Harry's. channel, YouTube. It's called Talking. Feds. Thanks, Harry. >> Thank you, Ben. Hey, if you want the. full story, how democracy got here and.

how we take it back, pre-order our new. book, WTF America, today. Just scan the. QR code or click the link in the. description. Let's do this.