|
 |
Here’s the highlight reel of last week’s posts and events. It was a particularly eventful week, and there’s one piece in particular that you’ll want to read now if you haven’t already. Grab a cup of coffee and get ready to catch up on anything you missed—links to all of last week’s columns below.
 |
The Week Ahead: We began the week with the news that the U.S. Postal Service, having scheduled publication of a “final rule” pursuant to the executive order we’ve been discussing ever since Trump promulgated it earlier this year, is on board to try to keep ballots out of the hands of people whose votes this administration fears. This despite the fact an injunction against putting the EO in place for the 2026 elections was already in effect. This set up the theme of the week’s coverage, where rulings on mail-ballots would take center stage.
Coffee with the Contrarians: I joined Norman Eisen Monday morning for an overview of the news. We discussed palpable momentum on the pro-democracy side of the aisle, even with the Supreme Court still a wild card. Our discussion can help you get a sense of how many wins there are in the courts and how important they are right now.
Substack Live with Steve Vladeck: Steve joined us to discuss Monday’s breaking news from the Supreme Court on the mail-in voting cases.
The Supreme Court Weighs In: On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in the case brought by state attorneys general challenging Trump’s executive order on elections. In an unsigned per curiam order, with dissents from Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Kagan) and Justice Jackson, the Court told the government it could go ahead and execute the EO. The ruling was on procedural grounds, not on the legality of the EO itself. Read here for the full explainer.
It’s Really About 2028: Tuesday morning, the government filed its response to a motion from the League of Women Voters plaintiffs in their case before Judge Indira Talwani. After the Postal Service noticed its intent to publish a “final rule” on how it would implement the parts of the EO that ask it to take authority for ensuring only federal government-approved voters can get mail ballots, the plaintiffs went back to court because that action was a clear violation of the injunction in the LWV case. The issue here is different from the one the Supreme Court weighed in on Monday, and it’s important to understand that this is all really about is 2028 and whether the administration can make the case that it should be permitted to implement new procedures restricting mail-in voting then.
Daydreams: On Wednesday, I called a much-deserved night off for all of us and shared a picture of one of my happy places.
Revisiting: Can Federal Troops Be Stationed At The Polls In 2026?: When Trump first sent Marines and National Guardsmen into California, we caught the subtext. He was testing the waters. In light of recent developments in Maine and Wyoming, and as we look towards the midterms and beyond, we revisit the issue of the legality of deploying law enforcement or troops to the polls, and what our response would be if Trump tries it.
Judge Talwani’s Most Recent Order On Voting By Mail: If you missed this one, the link will take you to my full analysis of the Judge’s order. This piece ran long, and the issues are complicated, but if you have time for just one piece today, reading or rereading this one will get you up to speed and ready to go as this issue continues to hold center stage in coming weeks. This administration is trying so hard to take away our right to vote, and our best response is to double down—stay informed and do whatever it takes to vote and make sure your vote gets counted.
Five Questions with Meteorologist John Morales: Meteorologist John Morales began warning his viewers in 2025 that he was concerned he could no longer accurately predict weather events for them, especially when it came to the hurricanes Floridians fear, because “recent cuts to the National Weather Service could leave television forecasters like him ‘flying blind’ this hurricane season. ‘We may not exactly know how strong a hurricane is before it reaches the coastline,’” he told his viewers. He joined us Friday to discuss where things stand now.
Live with California AG Rob Bonta: This has been one of those weeks when it's been difficult to cover all the important developments at the intersection of law and politics. I invited California Attorney General Rob Bonta to join us Saturday so we could catch up on the landmark settlement state attorneys general reached with Meta to take steps to protect minors across its platforms; why Bonta abruptly canceled settlement talks with Paramount over its proposed merger with Warner Brothers, and where he sees those negotiations heading now; and Bonta’s take on the next steps in the state AGs’ lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order on voting by mail.
These are complicated legal times, and it’s easy for the truth to get lost in the chaos. Civil Discourse doesn’t just track today’s headlines—it connects them to the legal and political history that explains why they matter. We don’t forget what’s at stake. We don’t let Trump and his allies rewrite the past.
Subscribe for free and get clear analysis that helps you see the whole picture, delivered straight to your inbox. Paid subscriptions help keep the newsletter free and let me devote the time and resources needed to write it.
We’re in this together,
Joyce