Trump administration asks SCOTUS to rule soon on mail

We’re looking for more submissions for the Ask Amy section of this newsletter. Please send your burning questions about the Supreme Court to [email protected]. At the Court On July 27, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on its emergency docket to clear the way for the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting. Twelve states later echoed this request in their own application. Last week, the group of 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order asked the court to deny these requests. On Wednesday, the Trump administration urged the justices to “promptly” issue their decision. For more on the new filing, see the On Site section below. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court released its calendar for the November argument session. The court is set to release the second of three summer order lists on Monday at 9:30 a.m. EDT. (We discussed what these lists typically address in our July 13 newsletter.) Morning Reads The little-noticed Supreme Court case that could impact where people pray John Fritze, CNN In early 2021, Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jew, set out “to host a small prayer session at his home near Cleveland.” But when city officials learned of his planned event, they “sent him a cease-and-desist notice demanding that he first obtain a special-use permit,” according to CNN. The resulting dispute over the city’s rules for small religious gatherings in private homes – and more specifically, the question of “whether Grand could sue before he received a definitive denial of a permit” – will be considered by the Supreme Court during the upcoming term. CNN noted that the case could “expand the power of churches, synagogues and other religious entities to challenge zoning laws that restrict their access to residential neighborhoods.” Apple App Store Rate Proceeding Halted by Supreme Court for Now Leah Nylen, Bloomberg During the 2026-27 term, the Supreme Court will hear argument on contempt charges against Apple that were levied by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in a dispute between Apple and Epic Games over Apple’s App Store. Rogers held Apple in contempt after ordering it to allow game developers like Epic to direct users to external storefronts for in-app purchases, determining that the company failed to comply with that ruling when “it imposed a new 27% commission on revenue generated” through such purchases, according to Bloomberg. On Tuesday, Rogers denied Apple’s motion to pause proceedings in her court on the commission while the Supreme Court considers the case on the contempt finding. In response, Apple on Wednesday came to the Supreme Court on its emergency docket, asking the justices to stay lower-court proceedings “while the Supreme Court considers the case since a ruling by the justices could render further hearings moot.” Hours later, Justice Elena Kagan issued an administrative stay that paused proceedings for one day, giving “the high court more time to consider Apple’s request for a longer-term stop.” New Evidence Shows Agents Using Slurs, Bolstering Profiling Claims Jazmine Ulloa, Maia Spoto, and Jill Cowan, The New York Times In lawsuits filed across the country, civil rights groups have challenged “the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign,” contending that immigration arrests involve unlawful racial profiling. “[B]ody-camera footage, text messages and other documents emerging from” these lawsuits appear to support these claims, showing, for example, federal agents referring to “targets” by “derogatory,” race-based terms, according to The New York Times. However, “even as evidence of racial profiling has come to light, what seemed like settled law – that law enforcement officers could not question or detain someone solely based on their race or ethnicity – has turned out to be far more of an open question when it comes to immigration enforcement.” The Times noted that the Supreme Court’s 2025 emergency docket decision allowing federal officers to more freely make immigration stops in the Los Angeles area added to the confusion. “The lawsuit that led to the court’s temporary decision and other similar suits are still working their way through lower courts, and it could be months before they are resolved and years before the Supreme Court has a chance to say more.” Bruce is dead; last-ditch plea to U.S. Supreme Court can’t save dog’s life Scott Steepleton, Camarillo Acorn On Wednesday, a legal battle over the fate of a dog named Bruce, who was “ordered euthanized” after “being declared vicious,” arrived on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. Attorneys representing Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center and Bruce’s guardian, Claire Birgy, urged the justices to “prevent Ventura County Animal Services from euthanizing the dog while his federal appeal remains pending,” according to the Camarillo Acorn. That appeal asks whether the rescue center retained rights to have a say in Bruce’s future after adopting him out to Birgy. Before the Supreme Court responded to the request, Bruce was put down. How Democrats can repair the broken Supreme Court Adam Schiff, Los Angeles Times In a column for the Los Angeles Times, Sen. Adam Schiff, a Democrat representing California, argued that “[f]uture Democratic majorities in Congress — perhaps starting as soon as January — should make repairing the [Supreme Court] and reforming the judicial branch a priority to make sure it does not continue to operate as a partisan and retrograde institution.” Specifically, he called on Democrats to “enact term limits for Supreme Court justices,” “expand the number of justices sitting on the court to reflect the expanded size of our nation,” and “create an enforceable code of ethics, bringing this court under the same set of rules of accountability as other leaders privileged to be in public service.” “These proposals would help restore balance and credibility to the court,” Schiff wrote. On Site Trump administration urges Supreme Court to issue a decision in mail-in voting dispute By Amy Howe The Trump administration on Wednesday reiterated its request for the court to move quickly to block a ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts that prohibits the government from implementing part of an executive order on mail-in voting in 23 states and the District of Columbia for the November elections. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that “it is critical that the Court act promptly on the pending” request, which was filed on July 27 and has now been fully briefed for more than a week. Are Republicans falling out of love with the Supreme Court? By Kelsey Dallas To say that Republicans are more supportive than Democrats of the Supreme Court and less supportive of reform efforts is not to say that Republicans are entirely satisfied with the court. Indeed, many new polls included signs of growing Republican unrest. SCOTUS has issued its decisions. Now Congress has the floor. By James Valvo & Cindy Crawford In a column for SCOTUSblog, James Valvo and Cindy Crawford call on Congress to “do better” when responding to Supreme Court rulings with which it disagrees. “At the end of each Supreme Court term, it should make a habit of embracing its core constitutional responsibility by providing statutory responses to the court’s decisions,” they wrote. Podcasts Very Civilized Orangutans Will Baude and Dan Epps discuss Hunter v. United States, which holds that a plea bargain’s appeal waiver if unenforceable when enforcing it would work a “miscarriage of justice.” They consider where that rule comes from and why the opinion commanded so much agreement. There You Go Again The president did not file for reconsideration of the court’s birthright citizenship decision, but he nevertheless didn’t let the Constitution rest, issuing two new executive orders that purport to extend the set of persons not receiving citizenship upon their birth. Akhil Amar and Andy Lipka take a look. Utah v. Mullins Over the past 14 years, the Supreme Court has issued three significant rulings on how the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments” applies in the context of sentencing juvenile offenders to life in prison without the possibility of parole. First, in 2012, it held in Miller v. Alabama that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates” this sentence, and that, in general, the sentence of life without parole should be “uncommon” and imposed only after a sentencer has considered a child’s “diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change.” Then, in 2016’s Montgomery v. Louisiana, the court considered whether Miller applied retroactively, holding that it does and again emphasizing “that sentencing a child to life without parole is excessive for all but the ‘rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.’” Finally, in 2021, the court decided Jones v. Mississippi, which asked whether, under Miller and Montgomery, a sentencer must “make a separate factual finding of permanent incorrigibility before sentencing the defendant to life without parole.” It held that no such factual finding is necessary, because, according to the majority, Miller required only “that a sentencer consider youth as a mitigating factor.” With these three rulings, the court aimed to clear up persistent confusion over what exactly a trial court needs to consider when sentencing a juvenile offender to a life sentence without any chance of parole. And yet questions still linger, according to a petition for review awaiting the court’s attention, which urges the court to again address these circumstances. The petition centers on Morris Mullins, who was charged with the rape and aggravated murder of Amy Davis in May 2001, when he was 17 years old. “Mullins pled guilty to aggravated murder in exchange for the State dropping the rape charge and taking the death penalty off the table,” according to the Utah Supreme Court. During the sentencing phase of Mullins’ trial, the judge considered whether he should be eligible for parole in the future, hearing competing claims about his dysfunctional upbringing and propensity for violence. The judge ultimately sentenced Mullins to life without parole but expressed hope that he would make something of his life. “[I]f you’re gonna be with us for a long time and have a chance to change, I hope—not under the present circumstances—I’m hoping you’ll find some way to be productive,” the judge said. After the Supreme Court decided Miller, Mullins challenged his sentence, contending that the judge had not properly considered his age and that, as a result, his sentence was unconstitutional. A Utah district court disagreed, concluding that the judge had appropriately weighed Mullins’ age along with other mitigating factors. However, the Utah Supreme Court, in a divided ruling, held that the record was unclear as to whether the sentencing court “properly consider[ed] Mullins’s youth” and noted that the judge, through his final comment to Mullins, appeared to acknowledge that he “might have the capacity for change.” It vacated Mullins’ sentence and remanded the case back to the district court for resentencing. In its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Utah asserts that the state supreme court’s ruling is the product of ongoing confusion surrounding “Miller and its progeny.” The state asks the justices to address whether a judge may sentence a juvenile to life without parole even after suggesting that the “juvenile is capable of change and reform,” noting that “state and federal courts are split on” this question. Utah further argues that the Supreme Court should side with those courts that have found “that even corrigible juvenile offenders may be sentenced to” life without parole, because, in their view, “consideration of youth” is all that’s required by the Miller line of cases, not a specific outcome after such consideration. In his response to the petition for review, Mullins contends that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over his case, because it has “not reached final judgment.” This is because Mullins’ “resentencing has yet to take place.” Mullins further argues that “the question presented has little significance” for the country, because “[o]nly a small and shrinking number of states ever impose life without parole on juvenile offenders.” Utah v. Mullins is scheduled to be considered by the justices for the first time at their “long conference” on Sept. 28. SCOTUS Quote JUSTICE SCALIA: “We – we have to assume ignorance of the drafter.” JUSTICE BREYER: “Yes, ignorance of other laws.” JUSTICE SCALIA: “As a general principle.” JUSTICE BREYER: “That's right, general ignorance.” — Marx v. General Revenue Corp. (2012) Recommended Citation: Kelsey Dallas, Trump administration asks SCOTUS to rule soon on mail-in voting, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 13, 2026, 9:00 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/08/trump-administration-asks-scotus-to-rule-soon-on-mail-in-voting/