With the midterm elections approaching, the Supreme Court this week blocked an order from the administration that had sought to place new restrictions on mail-in voting, according to reporting from Democracy Now.
The ruling adds to a string of election-related legal fights that have played out over the past year as both parties position themselves ahead of November's vote for control of Congress. Mail-in voting rules have been a recurring point of legal and political contention in recent election cycles, with disputes frequently reaching federal courts before major elections.
Separately, the political stakes of the midterms were underscored this month by a proposal from the president himself. In a social media post shared through the White House's official channels, the administration floated what it called a Trump Dividend, a pledge that if Republicans win control of both the House and the Senate, the administration would issue a payment of 5,000 dollars to every adult citizen in the United States, citing the country's economic performance as the justification.
The proposal would require congressional action to become law, and any such payment would ultimately depend on the outcome of the very elections it is tied to. Together, the court ruling and the dividend proposal reflect how central both the mechanics of voting and big, attention-getting economic promises have become to the run-up to this fall's elections.
Watch for how election administrators in individual states respond to the Supreme Court's ruling on mail-in voting, and whether the dividend proposal gains traction in Congress ahead of November.
What did the Supreme Court's ruling actually block?
It blocked an executive order that had sought to impose new restrictions on mail-in voting, according to reporting from Democracy Now.
Is the $5,000 Trump Dividend guaranteed?
No, it was described as contingent on Republicans winning control of both the House and Senate in the midterms, and would still need congressional action.