Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Responds to Supreme Court’s Procedural Vote on Trump Administration’s Attempt to Restrict Mail-In Ballots

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
August 24, 2026 

Contact: 

Zindy Marquez 
Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights 
zmarquez@clccrul.org  

 

Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Responds to Supreme Court’s Procedural Vote on Trump Administration’s Attempt to Restrict Mail-In Ballots 

CHICAGO, IL — Today, the U.S. Supreme Court put on hold a lower court ruling that had blocked key parts of President Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting, essentially stating the lower court's ruling came too early. This decision allows the Trump administration to move forward on their plans to have the United States Postal Service decide who receives a ballot even while the lower court is still deciding on the legality of the executive order. 

Aneel Chablani, Vice President and Legal Director at Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, issued the following statement: 

"Today's Supreme Court decision was strictly on procedural timing and has not yet decided on whether President Trump's executive order to restrict mail-in voting is lawful. Let’s be clear: today’s ruling does not affect any voter’s ability to cast a mail ballot. States—not the president or United States Postal Service—have full authority and oversight over our elections. This executive order is one of many attempts to create chaos and confusion for eligible voters with just over two months before Election Day.  

In America, voters choose their elected officials — elected officials do not get to choose their voters by creating barriers to participation. We will continue to monitor this evolving situation to see if it will impact voters in Illinois and across the Midwest. If voters have any questions, they can contact the nonpartisan Election Protection hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE. Trained volunteers are ready to help support voters and address concerns." 

###

Next
Next

Fulton Grace Realty Settles in Landmark Source of Income Discrimination Case