Related videos:
The President of the United States, Donald Trump, has faced a new setback in his attempt to tighten the country's electoral rules, after the Supreme Court upheld states that allow counting mail-in ballots received after the deadline.
The recent decision by the Supreme Court to allow certain mail-in votes to be counted even if they arrive after Election Day is a direct blow to that strategy.
Civil rights groups have hailed the ruling as a victory for electoral participation, while allies of the president insist on the need for stricter rules.
However, Trump's legal offensive has not stopped.
His administration has already indicated that it will continue to appeal adverse decisions and explore new ways to influence the electoral process, as reported by the AP. agency.
Moreover, the Republican Party has active legal teams in several states to challenge voting procedures and oversee ballot counting.
The decision adds to a series of recent judicial rulings that have limited the president's ability to implement changes to the voting system in preparation for the midterm elections in November 2026.
The ruling from the highest court does not come in a vacuum.
In recent weeks, various federal courts have blocked several initiatives promoted by the Trump administration, including executive orders aimed at modifying national electoral standards and centralizing sensitive voter data.
These decisions reflect the legal limits of presidential power in a system where the Constitution grants states and Congress a predominant role in the organization of elections.
The contrast is evident when compared to recent decisions that seemed to favor the leader.
At the end of May, a federal judge appointed by Trump himself rejected a motion to suspend an executive order that restricts mail-in voting, allowing the measure to remain in effect, at least for the time being, for the upcoming elections.
However, this relief has been partial and does not change the overall trend: the courts are stalling the more ambitious aspects of their electoral agenda.
Institutional shock and limits of presidential power
Trump's initiatives have been characterized by his insistence on strengthening controls over voting, especially mail-in voting, arguing that it prevents fraud.
However, multiple studies have shown that electoral fraud in the United States is extremely rare, representing a minimal fraction of the total votes cast.
Nonetheless, the president has attempted to promote measures such as mandatory citizenship verification for registration, the creation of federal voter databases, and the restriction of absentee voting.
Many of these actions have been blocked by federal judges, who have argued that they exceed the authority of the executive branch and violate constitutional principles, such as the separation of powers.
One of the most controversial points has been the attempt by the Department of Justice to access detailed voter data in various states, including sensitive information such as birth dates and partial Social Security numbers.
These requests have been rejected in court following opposition from state authorities, both Democrats and Republicans.
In this context, their administration has promoted measures to limit this modality, resulting in a wave of legal challenges.
An uncertain scenario leading up to November
As the midterm elections approach, the electoral landscape in the United States is becoming increasingly complex.
On one hand, Trump continues to rally his base with a discourse focused on the alleged need to "protect" the integrity of the vote.
On the other hand, courts and state authorities act as a counterbalance, limiting the scope of their measures.
Legal experts agree that the U.S. federal system establishes clear barriers to the president's direct intervention in the administration of elections.
However, they warn that the climate of political and judicial confrontation could affect voters' confidence in the process.
In this context, the Supreme Court's decision not only represents a specific setback for Trump but also serves as a broader indication of the institutional limits of his agenda.
Filed under: