{"id":558,"date":"2026-08-24T23:42:47","date_gmt":"2026-08-24T23:42:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558"},"modified":"2026-08-24T23:42:47","modified_gmt":"2026-08-24T23:42:47","slug":"supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-with-order-imposing-restrictions-on-mail-in-voting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Supreme Court on Monday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, that imposes restrictions on mail-in voting. The court paused an injunction by a federal judge in Boston that had barred the federal government from applying provisions of that executive order in the November elections to 23 states (along with the District of Columbia) challenging their legality.<\/p>\n

Read more There is no constitutional \u201cright to privacy\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

A by the same judge, in a case filed by a different set of plaintiffs, temporarily prohibits the U.S. Postal Service from implementing one provision of the executive order anywhere in the United States. That ruling remains in effect, at least for now.<\/p>\n

In its 10-page, unsigned , the majority said that it was too soon for courts to consider the states\u2019 challenge because the order has not yet been carried out \u2013 which means that the states have not suffered the kind of injury that allows their lawsuit to move forward.<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s three Democratic appointees dissented. In a 23-page opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the majority of \u201c[t]aking its eye off the ball\u201d and thus \u201cmiss[ing] the Government\u2019s actual objective: to secure our imprimatur for its effort to foment chaos ahead of the November elections.\u201d<\/p>\n

President Donald Trump signed the executive order at the center of the dispute in March. As it came to the court in late July, the focus of the case was on three different provisions of the order. The first instructs the Department of Homeland Security to create lists of the adult U.S. citizens in each state and to send those lists to states at least 60 days before a federal election. The second provision commands the U.S. attorney general to \u201cprioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of State and local officials \u2026 who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election.\u201d And the third provision requires states to give the U.S. Postal Service a list of voters to whom the states intend to send mail ballots, and it prohibits the USPS from mailing ballots to voters who are not on the lists of \u201cenrolled\u201d voters that the USPS will create.<\/p>\n

A group of 23 states, led by California, and the District of Columbia challenged the government\u2019s implementation of the order in a federal court in Massachusetts. They argued that the executive order conflicts with provisions in the Constitution that give states the power to determine voter eligibility and to set the \u201cTimes, Places, and Manner\u201d of holding congressional elections.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that she could not review the challengers\u2019 claims as they applied to federal elections scheduled after Nov. 3, 2026, because those claims were not yet \u201cripe\u201d \u2013 that is, ready for review. However, she said, she could review the challengers\u2019 claims with regard to the upcoming midterm elections because the order \u201ccreated a \u2018direct and immediate dilemma\u2019\u201d for them, and she prohibited the federal government from implementing the challenged restrictions on or before Nov. 3, 2026, in the District of Columbia and the 23 states.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit to pause Talwani\u2019s order while the litigation continued. It stressed that neither the federal government nor 12 states, led by Alabama, that had joined the case on the Trump administration\u2019s side had argued that the executive order was legal. That court also rejected the contention that the challengers did not have a right to sue or that the case was not yet ripe. The consequences of the executive order, the court of appeals countered, give states \u201cno practical choice but to respond to the EO now.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court seeking relief on July 27. Calling Talwani\u2019s order \u201cextraordinary,\u201d U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer that the challengers\u2019 claims are not yet ripe for review because the agencies haven\u2019t yet decided how they will implement the order. He that unless Talwani\u2019s order is paused, the government will be permanently harmed \u2013 one factor that courts consider in deciding whether to grant temporary relief \u2013 because it \u201cblocks the government\u2019s ability to finalize and implement the President\u2019s proposed policies to promote election integrity for the upcoming federal elections in November.\u201d Moreover, he added, \u201cevery day that it remains in place irreparably harms the government, as the start of mail-in and absentee voting in some States is now just one month away.\u201d<\/p>\n

Alabama and the other 11 states supporting the Trump administration two recent rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit involving the same executive order \u2013 one of which, they said, “held that it is too early to challenge the EO,” and the other of which allowed the executive order to be reinstated “on th[at] same basis.”<\/p>\n

Read more The court\u2019s clearly established problem<\/a><\/p>\n

The challengers on Aug. 3 that putting Talwani\u2019s injunction on hold \u201cwould allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program that would, among other things, give the U.S. Postal Service far-reaching new powers and responsibilities.\u201d They also emphasized that the 1st Circuit had agreed with them that \u201c\u2018the specificity of the EO\u2019s stated timelines and the inescapable legal requirements and impending deadlines that States currently face in facilitating mail-in and absentee balloting for immediately upcoming elections together establish\u2019\u201d the kind of \u201c\u2018concrete injury\u2019\u201d that allows them to sue.<\/p>\n

Three weeks later, the Trump administration the justices to step in, this time citing the imminent publication of a new U.S. Postal Service rule that, Sauer said, \u201cimposes only modest requirements for preparation and envelope design for federal ballot mail\u201d \u2013 such as requiring mail-in ballots \u201cto be mailed in envelopes that include the official Election Mail logo, are automation compatible, and use unique barcodes that denote the item\u2019s status as federal ballot mail and its delivery point ZIP code.\u201d If the justices do not pause Talwani\u2019s order, Sauer told them, the Postal Service \u201ccannot implement the rule\u201d for the upcoming November elections.<\/p>\n

On Monday afternoon the court granted the government\u2019s request. In its unsigned opinion, the majority wrote that the first provision of the order, instructing the DHS secretary to create state citizenship lists, is simply \u201can internal directive from the President to a subordinate.\u201d Because it doesn\u2019t require states to do anything, the majority reasoned, they are not injured by the provision \u2013 and therefore cannot challenge it. The possibility that the DHS secretary could implement the provision before November, and that the states could be harmed by that implementation, the majority stressed, is not enough to give the states a right to sue.<\/p>\n

The second provision of the order does not harm the states, the majority continued, because it merely \u201cdirects the Attorney General to \u2018prioritize\u2019 the investigation and prosecution of those who violate existing federal laws by issuing ballots to ineligible voters.\u201d Such an instruction, the court said, lies squarely within the powers that the Constitution gives the president.<\/p>\n

And the third and final provision, the majority said, \u201corders the Postal Service to initiate the process of proposing a rule that might bind the States in the future.\u201d When the states filed their lawsuit \u2013 which, the majority wrote, is the relevant time for determining whether the states had a right to sue \u2013 the order was \u201cnot a proposed rule, let alone a final rule.\u201d Here too, the majority indicated, Talwani\u2019s \u201cconclusion that this internal directive inflicts\u201d the kind of injury that would allow the states to sue \u201cnecessarily rests on an \u2018attenuated chain of inferences.\u2019\u201d \u201cIf the Postal Service\u2019s final rule harms the States,\u201d the majority noted, \u201cthey may challenge that rule.\u201d<\/p>\n

The majority also found that the government would suffer irreparable harm if Talwani\u2019s order is not paused now. Even if that ruling were eventually reversed, the majority emphasized, it \u201cwould come too late for the 2026 midterms.\u201d By contrast, the majority said, the states would not be harmed from putting Talwani\u2019s order on hold, because the executive order doesn\u2019t require them to do anything.<\/p>\n

In a four-page opinion joined by Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that she would have left Talwani\u2019s order in place. She also stressed that the majority\u2019s ruling \u201cdoes not address whether the President\u2019s attempts to interfere with States\u2019 administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful. Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President\u2019s directives. Instead,\u201d she concluded, \u201ctoday\u2019s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sotomayor also suggested that the government was trying to \u201chave it both ways\u201d: On one hand, she observed, the majority \u201csays it was speculative to think there would be a final rule at all when this suit was filed, seemingly accepting the Government\u2019s representation that it may not actually implement the Executive Order.\u201d But on the other hand, she wrote, the government \u201cinsists that it seeks to implement the Executive Order immediately for purposes of establishing irreparable harm.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jackson acknowledged that the majority had \u201cnot foreclosed States from challenging this blatantly unconstitutional Order.\u201d But she characterized the majority\u2019s order as another chapter \u201cin the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges.\u201d Although the court has for two decades made clear \u201cthat even valid election-related legal claims can come too late,\u201d she argued, the majority now indicates \u201cthat such claims can also come too early<\/em>.\u201d This is particularly problematic, she suggested, when \u201cthe Government (which controls the timing of proposed and final rules) can easily game the system.\u201d<\/p>\n

Read more The latest on the mail-in voting and ballroom battles<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court on Monday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, that imposes restrictions on mail-in voting. The court paused an injunction by a federal judge in Boston that had barred the federal government from applying provisions of that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":280,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-court-news"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court on Monday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, that imposes restrictions on mail-in voting. The court paused an injunction by a federal judge in Boston that had barred the federal government from applying provisions of that […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-24T23:42:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=558#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=558\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-24T23:42:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=558\"},\"wordCount\":1655,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=558#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"COURT NEWS\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=558#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=558\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=558\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=558#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=558#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-24T23:42:47+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=558#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=558\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=558#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=558#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting - American Service Review","og_description":"The Supreme Court on Monday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, that imposes restrictions on mail-in voting. The court paused an injunction by a federal judge in Boston that had barred the federal government from applying provisions of that […]","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-08-24T23:42:47+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting","datePublished":"2026-08-24T23:42:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558"},"wordCount":1655,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg","articleSection":["COURT NEWS"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558","name":"Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg","datePublished":"2026-08-24T23:42:47+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/08e9cc5f74675177c893cdb9ae94353c.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=558#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/558","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=558"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/558\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/280"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=558"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=558"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}