Justice Elena Kagan has addressed concerns that the Supreme Court may be perceived as favoring former President Donald Trump, noting that the Court has ruled against several of his policies in the past. However, recent rulings have allowed Trump to move forward with an executive order that requires states and the Department of Homeland Security to create "state citizenship lists" to remove noncitizens from voter rolls. This order has sparked legal disputes, as the U.S. Postal Service is now tasked with determining who receives mail-in ballots—a responsibility typically held by states under the Constitution. Nearly one in three Americans voted by mail in the 2024 general election, with differing levels of participation among registered Democrats and Republicans. Mail-in voting has become a contentious issue, especially after Trump's use of it in past elections. The Supreme Court majority ruled that Trump was likely to suffer irreparable harm if a temporary freeze on the executive order was not lifted. This decision came after 23 "blue" states—those typically voting for Democratic candidates—challenged the order, which had been paused by an injunction from Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama-appointed federal judge. In a separate case, Talwani temporarily blocked the Postal Service from implementing the executive order. The Supreme Court said the issue wasn't yet ready for judicial review because the Postal Service’s actions had not been finalized. However, a whistleblower later claimed the agency was working in secret to implement the order, potentially risking the integrity of the mail ballot system ahead of the 2026 midterms. The Court's majority opinion clarified that its decision was not a final judgment on the legality of the executive order. Three Democratic-appointed justices, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing that the majority was acting too hastily and creating a confusing legal situation. Jackson called the situation a "Kafkaesque nightmare," warning that the Court's approach could lead to premature legal challenges. Trump’s executive order requires Homeland Security to compile lists of U.S. citizens in each state and send them to states 60 days before an election. It also mandates that states provide the Postal Service with lists of eligible voters for mail-in ballots, assuming the lists are complete. The order also directs the Postal Service to stop delivering mail-in ballots to those not on the lists. A Court of Appeals refused to pause Talwani’s order, pointing out that neither the federal government nor the 12 "red" states supporting Trump had argued the executive order was legal. The Supreme Court majority believed the government would suffer harm if the order was not paused, arguing that even if the ruling was later overturned, it would be too late for the 2026 midterms. They also said the states would not be harmed by the delay, as the order does not require them to act immediately. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by Kagan, criticized the government for trying to have it both ways, pointing out the inconsistency in its arguments. Jackson referenced the "Purcell principle," a legal guideline suggesting courts should avoid making changes close to an election. Legal scholar Stephen Vladeck called the ruling "indefensible and anti-democratic," one of the most extreme decisions the Court has made in recent years.