{"id":560,"date":"2026-08-25T14:15:03","date_gmt":"2026-08-25T14:15:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560"},"modified":"2026-08-25T14:15:03","modified_gmt":"2026-08-25T14:15:03","slug":"scotus-sides-with-trump-administration-in-mail-in-voting-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS sides with Trump administration in mail-in voting dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"

Justice Lewis Powell died on this day in 1998. During his time on the Supreme Court, Powell was considered a moderate, leaning \u201cto the right on some key issues and to the left on others.\u201d CNN recently described him as one of a series of justices who occupied a \u201cpragmatic center.\u201d<\/p>

Read more Gutting the Alien Tort Statute<\/a><\/p>

At the Court<\/h2>

On Monday, the Supreme Court the Trump administration\u2019s request to allow it to move forward with implementation of President Donald Trump\u2019s executive order on mail-in voting. For more on the decision, see the On Site section below.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

On Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a , known as an administrative stay, allowing construction on the new White House ballroom to continue for now.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Morning Reads<\/h2>

Clarence Thomas thanks Cruz for defending him against ethics complaints<\/h3>

Sophie Brams, The Hill<\/p>

Justice Clarence Thomas was the featured guest on Monday\u2019s episode of Sen. Ted Cruz\u2019s podcast, and during their conversation, Thomas thanked Cruz \u201cfor publicly defending him against ethics complaints in recent years,\u201d according to The Hill. Cruz spoke out in support of Thomas after the justice faced criticism for not disclosing \u201cgifts, luxury travel and property transactions involving billionaire and GOP mega-donor Harlan Crow\u201d and for his wife\u2019s \u201cinvolvement in conservative political activity.\u201d \u201cYou\u2019re one of the people who actually stands up, particularly at times when others seem to wither, and I appreciate it,\u201d Thomas told Cruz. \u201cAnd more personally, when we, my wife and I, were under attack for obvious reasons, you and Mike Lee and some of the other friends would stand up. So I really appreciate that.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Court cuts $50M judgment against Alex Jones over falsely labeling Sandy Hook killings a hoax<\/h3>

Jim Vertuno, Associated Press<\/p>

On Friday, the Texas Third Court of Appeals \u201cslashed a $50 million judgment that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was ordered to pay families of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre over his false claims that one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history was a hoax.\u201d The court determined that, under \u201cstate laws that limit lawsuit damages,\u201d Jones \u201ccan only be forced to pay about $6 million,\u201d according to the Associated Press. \u201cThe ruling does not affect a separate $1.25 billion judgment against Jones in Connecticut, where he was also found liable for defaming and causing emotional distress to relatives of the 20 first-graders and six educators killed in the Newtown shooting.\u201d Last year, Jones asked the Supreme Court to review that $1.25 billion judgment, but the justices denied his petition. On Friday, Jones said he will continue to challenge the now-$6 million Texas judgment, first by appealing to the state Supreme Court.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Law firm Paul Weiss taps new Supreme Court practice head after Shanmugam exit<\/h3>

Sara Merken, Reuters<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

Attorney William Jay is moving from the law firm Goodwin to Paul Weiss, where he will \u201clead its Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice, filling the role after the group\u2019s prominent head Kannon Shanmugam left for another firm earlier this year,\u201d according to Reuters. Jay, \u201cwho has argued 19 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court,\u201d was \u201cat Goodwin for 14 years. He previously worked as an assistant to the Solicitor General. Earlier in his career he was a clerk to former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Defending the Supreme Court\u2019s Legitimacy<\/h3>

Brian J. Paul, National Review<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

In a column for the National Review, Brian J. Paul reflected on the negative sentiment surrounding the Supreme Court today, sharing why he believes \u201cthe Court still deserves our confidence \u2013 and our defense.\u201d \u201cAn independent judiciary was never designed to be popular in real time; it was designed to be a check that operates regardless of public sentiment,\u201d Paul wrote, asserting that the Supreme Court\u2019s \u201clegitimacy comes from how<\/em> it decides, not what<\/em> it decides.\u201d He continued, \u201cThe Supreme Court does not need our political leaders to agree with every decision it hands down \u2013 it needs them to defend the process that makes those decisions binding at all.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Irreparable Harm, \u201cAdministrative\u201d Stays, and the White House Ballroom<\/h3>

Steve Vladeck, One First<\/p>

In a post for his Substack, Steve Vladeck highlighted Chief Justice John Roberts\u2019s \u201cone-sentence administrative stay keeping Judge Richard Leon\u2019s injunction against above-ground construction of the new White House ballroom on hold \u2018pending further order\u2019 of the Chief Justice or the Court.\u201d Vladeck contended that \u201cno defensible explanation for\u201d the administrative stay exists, because \u201cthe justices have never publicly identified any<\/em> criteria for an \u2018administrative\u2019 stay, as opposed to a stay pending appeal.\u201d \u201cYou will not find, anywhere in the Supreme Court\u2019s Rules or in any published opinions, a definition of an administrative stay, a standard for granting one, a cap on how long one may last, or a rule about who gets to decide,\u201d he noted. Vladeck called on the justices \u201cto publicly articulate criteria for when they should (and shouldn\u2019t) issue \u2018administrative\u2019 stays.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

On Site<\/h2>
Court News<\/span>

Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting <\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

The Supreme Court on Monday 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. The court\u2019s three Democratic appointees dissented.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Contributor Corner<\/span>

The court\u2019s clearly established problem<\/h3>

By Daniel Harawa<\/p>

In his Civil Rights and Wrongs column, Daniel Harawa explored the portion of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 that \u201crequires federal courts to defer to the state court\u2019s ruling on the federal constitutional claim so long as it was not \u2018contrary to … clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.\u2019\u201d \u201cThirty years after AEDPA\u2019s enactment,\u201d Harawa wrote, \u201cwhat counts as \u2018clearly established Federal law\u2019 remains remarkably unclear.\u201d<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Contributor Corner<\/span>

There is no constitutional \u201cright to privacy\u201d <\/h3>

By Steven Gow Calabresi<\/p>

In his Born Free and Equal column, Steven Gow Calabresi compared the historical roots of the idea that all are \u201cborn free and equal\u201d to the comparatively weaker history of the concept of a right to privacy. \u201cA substantial majority of the American people in 1791, 1868, and 2018 lived in states which had born free and equal clauses, but almost no Americans in 1791, 1868, or 2018 lived in states whose bills of rights guarantee a right to privacy,\u201d Calabresi wrote.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
A Closer Look<\/div>

Joseph Schechter<\/h3><\/div>

Today, as part of our Closer Look series on famous Supreme Court plaintiffs, we look at the Schechter brothers, the plaintiffs in the case <\/em>A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (the \u201csick chicken case\u201d), in which the justices defied FDR and which is one of just two times in American history that the Supreme Court struck down a federal statute under the non-delegation doctrine.<\/em><\/p>

Read more Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting<\/a><\/p>

Joseph, Martin, Aaron, and Alex Schechter were four Jewish brothers who were born in Hungary between the late 1890s and early 1900s. Sometime in the early 20th century, the Schechter brothers immigrated to the United States from Hungary with their parents. As young men, they became notable figures in Brooklyn\u2019s kosher food industry. Joseph ran the Schechter Poultry Corporation in East Flatbush, Brooklyn, and Martin, Aaron, and Alex owned A.L.A. Schechter Corporation in Farragut, Brooklyn.<\/p>

As slaughterhouse operators in the poultry industry (their last name, Schechter, means \u201cslaughterer\u201d in Yiddish), the brothers would purchase birds from sellers at West Washington Market in New York City, railroad depots around New York City, and occasionally Philadelphia. The birds would then be trucked to the Schechters\u2019 poultry shops in Brooklyn. Upon purchase by customers, the birds would be immediately slaughtered by a schochtim<\/em>, a kosher slaughterer employed by the Schechters.<\/p>

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the National Industrial Recovery Act, a part of the New Deal that aimed to reduce competition. Violations could result in criminal charges. The Roosevelt administration believed too much competition was reducing prices, which then lowered wages and consumers\u2019 purchasing power. The National Recovery Administration, created under the NIRA, thus instituted regulations aimed at increasing wages and stabilizing trade practices. Section 3 of the NIRA gave the president broad authority to set \u201ccodes of fair competition\u201d and, under this authority, the Roosevelt administration promulgated the Live Poultry Code. One such rule under this code was for \u201cstraight killing,\u201d requiring most purchasers to purchase either a coop or half coop of chickens rather than allowing them to pick out individual chickens. The Roosevelt administration believed that this rule would stabilize competition by preventing customers from selecting just the best chickens and leaving sellers with difficult-to-sell birds.<\/p>

A year after the NIRA was instituted, inspectors found numerous violations of the Live Poultry Code at the Schechters\u2019 poultry shops. (The Roosevelt administration had targeted the poultry field because of alleged corruption in the industry.) The Schechter brothers and their businesses were indicted on more than 60 counts, including \u201csell[ing] for human consumption unfit poultry\u201d and various violations of rules for selecting chickens.<\/p>

At trial, the Schechters were convicted on 19 counts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld every one of these but two. The Schechters then took their case to the Supreme Court and challenged the NIRA, particularly Section 3. They argued Congress had given, or \u201cdelegated,\u201d too much of its lawmaking power to the president by giving him broad power to create such regulations.<\/p>

In 1935, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court struck down the NIRA, including Section 3, as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the president. Additionally, the court struck down the NIRA on the basis that Congress had no power to pass the statute under the commerce clause since they were regulating businesses that were entirely intrastate.<\/p>

The Schechter brothers praised the court\u2019s decision, stating through their lawyer that \u201c[o]ur victory indicates that American justice does not permit persecution.\u201d<\/p>

Roosevelt was not so pleased. He criticized the justices\u2019 \u201chorse-and-buggy\u201d interpretation of the commerce clause. The decision is also believed to have contributed to his proposal to \u201cpack\u201d the court.<\/p>

Despite winning before the justices, Joseph Schechter ultimately regretted litigating the case given its significant financial cost to him: A 1935 New York Times article reported that Schechter owed $60,000 ($1.4 million in today\u2019s money) in legal fees. (After the article ran in the Times, Schechter received donations from across the country, including from several business groups, but he never fully recovered his legal fees.)<\/p>

A Times article published on the one-year anniversary of the decision revealed that due to financial difficulties, A.L.A. Schechter Corporation had gone out of business. At the time of the article\u2019s publication, Joseph was unemployed while Aaron and Alex ran a small poultry store and Martin worked at a chicken market. Later, Joseph Schechter was reported to have been working at \u201cSchechter Poultry\u201d into the late 1970s. Located in Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, the store specialized in selling cooked chickens; by that time live poultry markets were a rarity.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

SCOTUS Quote<\/h2>

JUSTICE KAGAN: \u201c\u2026 I’ll go back to this question. This is such a clear, explicit choice that was made about what it meant to \u2013\u00ad\u00ad to have equal representation with respect to that area. And how you go from that being mandated to it being prohibited in the State context is something that I still can’t quite work myself around.\u201d<\/p>

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

MR. CONSOVOY: \u201cJustice Harlan agreed with you. He did.\u201d<\/p>

JUSTICE KAGAN: \u201cThat’s a good person to be on the side of.\u201d<\/p>

MR. CONSOVOY: \u201cYes.\u201d<\/p>

(Laughter.)<\/p>

MR. CONSOVOY: \u201cBut his \u00ad\u00ad\u2013 his position was rejected 8\u00ad-1 in Reynolds<\/em>. \u2026\u201d<\/p>

\u2014 \u00a0(2015)<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plus, what Justice Thomas said on Sen. Ted Cruz\u2019s podcast.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-560","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-contributor-corner","category-newsletter"],"yoast_head":"\nSCOTUS sides with Trump administration in mail-in voting dispute - 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=560\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SCOTUS sides with Trump administration in mail-in voting dispute - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Plus, what Justice Thomas said on Sen. Ted Cruz\u2019s podcast.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-25T14:15:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/ab577f17be2116123cff73a8bacbfd16.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1333\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=560#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=560\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"SCOTUS sides with Trump administration in mail-in voting dispute\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-25T14:15:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=560\"},\"wordCount\":1992,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=560#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Contributor Corner\",\"Newsletter\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=560#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=560\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=560\",\"name\":\"SCOTUS sides with Trump administration in mail-in voting dispute - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=560#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=560#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-25T14:15:03+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=560#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=560\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=560#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=560#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SCOTUS sides with Trump administration in mail-in voting dispute\"}]},{\"@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":"SCOTUS sides with Trump administration in mail-in voting dispute - 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=560","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SCOTUS sides with Trump administration in mail-in voting dispute - American Service Review","og_description":"Plus, what Justice Thomas said on Sen. Ted Cruz\u2019s podcast.","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-08-25T14:15:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":1333,"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/ab577f17be2116123cff73a8bacbfd16.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"SCOTUS sides with Trump administration in mail-in voting dispute","datePublished":"2026-08-25T14:15:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560"},"wordCount":1992,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","articleSection":["Contributor Corner","Newsletter"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560","name":"SCOTUS sides with Trump administration in mail-in voting dispute - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","datePublished":"2026-08-25T14:15:03+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=560#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SCOTUS sides with Trump administration in mail-in voting dispute"}]},{"@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\/560","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=560"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/560\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/17"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}