Did Liberal Justices Slow-Walk Dissents to Delay Trump's USPS Voting Rule Past the Midterms?
Source: Shawn Fleetwood. "Did Liberal Justices Delay Dissents To Stop Trump's Voting EO?." September 15, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The article argues that the Supreme Court's liberal justices may have intentionally dragged out writing their dissents in a case about Trump's mail-in voting rule so that the rule couldn't be implemented in time for the 2026 midterms. The author bases this on Justice Alito's dissent, which blames the delay partly on the Court's own slow handling of the case, and points to two past instances (the Dobbs and Callais cases) where liberal justices allegedly used similar delay tactics for political reasons.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's liberal justices likely deliberately delayed writing and releasing their dissents in litigation over Trump's mail-in voting order in order to run out the clock and prevent the USPS rule from being implemented before the 2026 midterms.
Premises
- Justice Alito's dissent noted that the government was subject to months of premature litigation and injunctions later found to be issued without jurisdiction.
- Alito pointed out that after the Court determined Judge Talwani lacked jurisdiction, the Court itself took nearly a full month (late July to end of August) to issue its decision, producing nearly 40 pages of opinions including two dissents.
- This delay occurred despite the government's public notice that it needed to issue the rule in early-to-mid August to allow time for implementation before the midterms.
- Alito stated that the plaintiff states and the courts hearing their claims bear substantial blame for the rule's delayed timing, undermining their argument that timing concerns justify blocking the rule.
- This would not be the first time liberal justices allegedly delayed dissents for political purposes: Mollie Hemingway's book reported they dragged out their Dobbs dissent (including inserting a delaying footnote) despite pleas to finish quickly amid threats to conservative justices' safety.
- Similar delay tactics were reportedly used by liberal justices in the Louisiana v. Callais redistricting case to hinder GOP-led states from redistricting ahead of the midterms, which Alito seemingly confirmed in a later order.
Assumptions
- Justices have significant discretion over the timing of drafting and releasing dissents, and this discretion can be used strategically for political ends.
- Delaying a dissent's release can meaningfully affect the practical outcome of a case (e.g., by running out the clock before an election).
- The liberal justices' past alleged behavior (in Dobbs and Callais) is indicative of a pattern rather than isolated or coincidental delays.
- Alito's account of the case timeline and his characterization of blame reflect an intentional, not merely incidental, critique of the liberal justices' conduct.
- The author's interpretation of Alito's dissent as 'hinting' at deliberate delay is a fair reading rather than the author's own inference layered onto more neutral judicial language.