🚨SUPREME COURT BLOCKS HIM…

This is the big one we've been waiting. for, folks. Breaking news. The United. States Supreme Court has officially. blocked Donald Trump's election ballot. scheme, whereby Donald Trump imposed a. new rule on the US Postal Service, which. would have changed the way that states. were able to handle the mail ballots. the states were going to have to comply. with some Trump postal service rule that. had a barcode that had to match Trump's.

voter list. And if the states didn't. match Trump's voter list, he would. disqualify the state voters. This was. part of Donald Trump's plan to interfere. with the midterm elections. As I. reported earlier today, the Trumpapp. appointed district court judge in. Washington DC, Judge Nichols, made that. order at 12:30 a.m. this morning, blocking Donald Trump's rule with the. postal service. And as I explained, I.

think that he was trying to send a. signal to the United States Supreme. Court that a Trump appointed judge from. Trump's first term, Judge Carl Nichols, agreed with an Obama appointed judge in. Massachusetts. Nichols is from DC. He's. a district court judge there. And the. Obama appointed judge from Massachusetts. is Judge Talwani. She also blocked the. postal service rule. And so the fact. that you had an Obama judge and a Trump. judge both agreeing, I said, I think.

they're sending a signal. Remember the. video I did to the United States Supreme. Court that they were blocking it. together and so that the Supreme Court. should do the same. By the way, the. video I dropped about an hour ago also. predicted this outcome. I just I. released the video ultimately before the. ruling was made. So if you were watching. that video and you were like, "Okay, I. get it. The Supreme Court is warning. about uh that they're going to try to. enforce states rights over Donald Trump.

trying to have his own rule with the. postal service that infringes on these. state time, place, and manner uh rights. under the United States Constitution. I. released that video and then 5 minutes. later, the Supreme Court made this. ruling. Now, the Supreme Court's ruling. was a 7-2 decision. There were two. dissents. You had uh Justice Thomas in. the descent along with Justice Alo in.

the majority. You had Justice. Kavanaaugh, a Trump appointee. Although. Justice Kavanaaugh said there may be a. fair prospect that in the future a rule. that Trump wants to implement may be. something that could happen, but we're. too close to the 2026 midterm elections. So, I'm going to side with the majority. But even if you put Kavanaaugh in the. group with uh Alo and Thomas, that would. still make it a 6-3 decision, right?

With Justice Coney Barrett and Justice. Roberts joining the three liberal. justices, right? Katanji Brown, Jackson, uh Kagan, and Soto Mayor. So you would. have them along with Justice Roberts, along with uh Amy Coney Barrett. So, you. would still ultimately be able to have. uh a majority in the future if Trump. tries to implement this rule in 2028.

Let's take a look right now at uh this. order so we can look at it for. ourselves. In the Supreme Court of the. United States, uh the application for. stay presented to Justice Jackson and by. her referred to the court is denied. the. government is unlikely to succeed on the. merits of its challenge to the district. court's preliminary injunction. Remember, there was the district court. preliminary injunction in Massachusetts, Judge Telwani. And then earlier this.

morning, a district court injunction. blocking the Trump postal service rule. in DC. That was the Trump appointed. judge, Judge Carl Nichols. and the. equitable factors applicable for. obtaining emergency relief from this. court do not favor a stay. Justice. Kavanaaugh said, "In my view, based on. the briefing the court has received at. this interim stage, there is at least a. fair prospect that the final rule falls.

within the postal service statutory. authority. But applying the rule in the. 2026 election would be arbitrary and. capriccious in violation of the. administrative procedure act because. state and local election officials do. not have sufficient time to reasonably. implement the rule before the election. For that reason, I concur in the denial. of the application for stay. But only. Justice Kavanaaugh said that. So in. terms of other Trump appointee judges,

justices who agreed with the majority, you had Justice Gorsuch, you had Justice. Coney Barrett, George W. Bush appointed. the chief justice, Justice John Roberts. And they sided also with Kagan, with. Stoayayor, and Katanji Brown Jackson. So. even if Kavanaaugh gets peeled off. before 2028 and sides with Alo and. Thomas, who knows if Alto is going to be. there or not, um you would still have a. 6-3 decision. Even if you lost.

Kavanaaugh, you would have a 5 to4. decision. So this is good news not just. for the midterms, but this is also good. news for the 2028 election when Trump. tries to pull this scheme as well. It's. certainly disconcerting though that you. have Justice Kavanaaugh and Justice. Thomas and Alo still saying that they. would, you know, Justice Kavanaaugh says. I'm not going to do it now. Alo and. Thomas would do this now. And for people. who purported to care about states.

rights, the idea that they would say the. postal service can implement a rule at. Donald Trump's demand that creates a. Trump barcode that supersedes the state. voter roles such that if you are voting. in a state and you don't match Trump's. voter roles, you get disqualified from. voting. Also, if you don't match. identically the rules that Donald Trump. makes for how a ballot needs to look.

like the and it's like a complicated. puzzle to actually vote by mail. The. Trump regime tries to make their portal. as complicated as possible and make the. procedures to vote by mail very. difficult. that Donald Trump can. disqualify not just your ballot, uh, but. if you're not on the list or you, uh, fill out the ballot incorrectly, it. would give the Trump regime the power to. disqualify batches of ballots, 5,000,

10,000 ballots. They'll just disqualify. ballots. So, the fact that you even have. some justices who would go along with. that is deeply disconcerting. In any. event, this is a big deal though because. it was still a 7 to2 decision. Even if. you lose Kavanaaugh, it's a six-3. decision. But let's just take a look to. see what the disscent had to say just so. we can try to I don't want to say. understand, but we should know what. their words are to see what they're.

going to say in the future as their. argument. So, you had Justice Alo and. Justice Thomas. By the way, Alto was. appointed by George W. Bush. Justice. Thomas was appointed by George HW Bush. That's how far back that goes. And. here's what they say. The court. incorrectly denies the government's. application for a stay of a universal. injunction that bars implementation of a. final rule concerning election ballot. mail. Some of the plaintiffs lack. standing, while the remainder are.

pursuing a claim that this court has. recently called a hailmary pass that. rarely succeeds. The government has made. the showing necessary for a stay. So I. respectfully descent. Some 5 months ago, Donald Trump issued an internal. directive to his subordinates mandating, among other things, that the United. States Postal Service initiate a. proposed rulemaking regarding election. ballot mail. Just days after the. president's directive issued, numerous. organizations and groups of states led.

by California sued in the district of. Massachusetts. The district court. entered a series of injunctions blocking. implementation of the directive. This. court eventually stayed one of the. injunctions because the district court. lack likely lacked jurisdiction because. the suit was premature. Remember that. ruling from a few weeks back where the. Supreme Court ruled that there was no. standing or just because the postal. service rule had not been implemented. yet and thus there was no injury that.

the states and plaintiffs face. the rule. had to be implemented for the lawsuit to. proceed. So when the rule was. implemented then these states and these. groups filed suit because then there was. justability. By the way I believe there. was justability anyway. Right? I mean as. I an example I have given if you're. someone who in the past threatens to. shoot people in the face then you shoot. them in the face all the time then you. threaten to shoot somebody else in the. face and they sue you to block you from. shooting them in the face. The court.

shouldn't say, "Let's wait until you get. shot in the face, then you have your. injury." As I argued and as the states. argued, the states were injured by the. very process of the postal service. rulemaking because no matter what the. rule did, it would injure the states. control over elections because the. constitution provides that states. control the time, place, and manner of. elections, not the feds. So any rule. would be violative and threatening a. rulemaking process violated the states.

rights under the constitution because it. created confusion and the states didn't. know how they were supposed to respond. Anyway, the Supreme Court didn't buy. that argument, the one that I just made. I think they were wrong. The right-wing. Supreme Court that is, but they said, "All right, wait till the rules passed.". The rule passed. Then these injunctions. were issued at the district court level. Then it went up to the Supreme Court. because the Trump regime did an. emergency petition. That's what they. lost right here. I just wanted to give. you the procedural background. So then. it says within days of the final rules.

issuance, the district court then. entered into this temporary uh. restraining order that's in place. Then. uh Alo and Thomas say to obtain a stay, the applicants must make a strong. showing of likelihood of success on the. merits and irreparable harm. In close. cases, we also consider the balance of. equities. This is what Alto and Thomas. say. The government's likely to succeed. on the merits of its appeal. To begin, the district court issued a nationwide. injunction based on claims asserted by. several plaintiff organizations that.

likely lack standing. These. organizations first claim a direct. organizational injury because the rule. supposedly thwarts their ability to. educate members about voting. So, one of. the arguments by these two right-wing. extremist justices is a standing. Nobody. can sue. Nobody has the right. You don't. have you're not really injured. They. then go on to say, "As for the plaintiff. states, their claims are unlikely to. succeed. They claim the rule violates. the election clause. Article 1, section.

4, clause one of the constitution." This. claim, however, collapses into an. inquiry about whether the postal service. has statutory authority to promulgate. the rule. Even assuming the rule here is. a regulation of elections, Congress may. create such rules under the election. clause and by statute it may authorize. the postal service to issue such rules. because litigants cannot convert claims. that a federal entity has acted in. excess of its statutory authority into.

constitutional claims. The crux of this. dispute is whether the postal service. has statutory authority to issue the. rule. If you're like Ben, that sounds. like a lot of word salad. It is a lot of. word salad because these two right-wing. extremist justices are trying to grasp. at straws of how something that's. clearly a state's right under article 1. section 4 clause one can be converted. into just everyday rulemaking by the. postal service as though yeah of course. the postal service can change the way.

states do elections and then start to. disqualify voters from mailing in. ballots. You see what they're trying to. do here? It then goes on to say, "As for. the to assert a claim that an agency. exceeded its statutory authority, the. challenger needs a cause of action, which is typically provided by the. administrative procedure act. However, Congress broadly exempted the exercise. of powers of the postal service from. review under the APA. It also challen. channeled many claims against the postal.

service to initial review before the. postal regulatory commission followed by. a review in the United States courts of. appeals. These provisions tightly. constrain APA review of the postal. service actions. Let me explain what. they're trying to say here. Because what. the postal service usually does is deal. with mail. Congress has basically said. unless you're so far outside the bounds. of what the postal service is going to. be doing, the postal service isn't.

subject to the same administrative. procedure act claims because Congress. never envisioned that the postal service. would be used as a tool of an. authoritarian regime to attack people's. ability to vote, especially when. Republicans profess to care about states. rights and elections are a major one. So. people said, "Let the postal service be. the postal service." So the Trump regime. tried to exploit that and basically say,

"Well, the postal service has immunity.". So we say they have immunity now to. infringe on state rights of elections. And so these two justices are saying, "Well, we've allowed the postal service. to do what they want before." To which. my point is, and the common sense point. is, yeah, deliver mail, not interfere with elections. What are. you talking about? Now, from the video I. made this morning, what did the Trumpapp. appointed judge in the DC district.

court? Judge Nichols says, Judge Nichols. says, "Well, we can still overturn. postal service action if it's clearly, remember the word ultraviries. O L T R. A, separate word, v I s. It's Latin. So. italicized ultravirus so outside the. bounds of what the postal service is. supposed to do. And the Trump appointed. judge Nichols said, "Yeah, this is so. outside the bounds. This isn't. delivering mail. They're interfering. with states running of elections. That's. the issue." And so Judge Talwani, the.

Obama appointed judge said that. The. Trump appointed judge in the district. court in DC said that. And while the. Supreme Court majority didn't give their. rationale other than what Justice. Kavanaaugh said when he concurred and. said, "I might be okay with this later.". The implied rationale is that voting is. a states rights issue. Stay the hell. out. Exactly what I posted before was. what the Supreme Court I thought was. warning against in the Missouri state.

case where the Supreme Court blocked two. attempts by the Trump regime and the. MAGAS in the state of Missouri to impose. an unlawful map after the Missouri state. supreme court said, "Get out. We're. ruling that you have to go through a. referendum. You can't just go around the. legal process." So [snorts]. as you then kind of read more of this. disscent over here, they go since. plaintiffs cannot proceed under the. administrative procedures act, they must. instead invoke an equitable cause of.

action because such claims rely on. judicially implied causes of action and. may be used to do endun around statutes. created by Congress that restrict. judicial review. The court cases have. strictly limited non-statutory. ultravir review to a narrow set of. circumstances. Crucially, the relevant. agency action must be entirely in excess. of the agency's delegated powers and. contrary to a specific prohibition and. statute. Such a claim is thus.

essentially a hailmary pass that rarely. succeeds. And then it says, "Ultravirus. claims are confined to extreme agency. error where this agency has stepped so. plainly beyond the bounds of its. statutory authority or acted so clearly. in defiance of it as to warrant the. immediate intervention of a court in. equity. The Hail Mary pass, Alo and. Thomas argue, is unlikely to be. successfully completed here. The postal.

service has broad authority to regulate. the mail. It holds the general powers to. adopt, amend, and repeal such rules and. regulations not inconsistent with this. title as may be necessary in the. execution of its functions under this. title. If the questions of the postal. services power were before us in. something other than the context of an. ultravirus claim, the government's. argument would present a difficult. question. But here the question is. different. In order to assert an.

ultravirus claim, the plaintiffs must. show that the challenge regulation. uh the uh envelopes here. In order to. assert an ultravirus claim, the. plaintiffs must show that the challenge. regulation of envelopes here is entirely. in excess of the power to govern. collecting, handling, transporting, and. delivering, forwarding, and returning of. mail. The same is true of the. requirement to pass along information. about each recipient of ballot mail. At. the very least, the postal service did.

not act contrary to a specific. prohibition is what they're saying. So, do you see what they're arguing? They're. basically making an immunity argument by. trying to say because Congress said that. the Administrative Procedures Act. doesn't generally apply, you have to. show that the conduct is so outside the. bounds of what the post service does. And because the Trump regime is trying. to act like all we're doing is putting. our own barcode on, all we're doing is. changing the format of mail. And the.

states are like, "No, you are giving. yourself authority to delete and destroy. ballots and prevent people from voting.". And that's a state's rights issue. This. isn't what the postal service is. supposed to do. So anyway, I'm arming. you and I spent all that time on the. disscent so you can see the bad faith. argument, but how they tried to use. certain immunities that were given to. the postal service to try to bring in. this massive massive overhaul and this.

massive corrupt scheme to block state. mail ballots. The good news is in. summary, the Supreme Court has blocked. this scheme at least on a 6-3 basis. But. for purposes of this ruling, if you. include Kavanaaugh with the majority, although he concurred on different. grounds, a 7 to2 ruling blocking Trump's. scheme, the mail ballots proceed as they. should. That's a good story. That's good. news. And on the heels of the ruling.

affirming the Missouri State Supreme. Court that blocked the Trump MAGA scheme. there, these are multiple good rulings. preserving. what little is left of of of what exists. in our country, which is this midterm. election process. So now it's in your. hands, voters. That's where it's at. Hope you appreciated this analysis. longer than probably some, but I wanted. to give you all the granular details. Thanks for watching. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million. We appreciate.

you so much. Breaking news right now. My. brothers and I wrote a book. It's called. WTF America. And well, doesn't that just. say it all? It comes out officially this. October, but you can pre-order your copy. today. Just scan the QR code or click. the link in the description below. [music].