The court said it might rule differently in the future.
A federal appeals court on July 28 turned down an attempt from Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to block President Donald Trump’s overhaul of rules for mail-in voting, although judges said they may rule differently down the road.
A U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia panel upheld a May ruling from a federal judge in Washington that rejected a request from the Democrats to enter a preliminary injunction against an order from Trump that directed federal officials to compile lists of American citizens and compel states to only let people on the lists register to vote and vote in elections.
The judges on the panel said that at the present time, they cannot act against the president and his administration.
“While Plaintiffs have identified a number of serious questions concerning the lawfulness of proposed actions if implemented on the threshold of the upcoming federal election, this case likely is unripe for review in its present posture,” the panel said in a per curiam opinion.
“If the defendant agencies take steps to implement the Executive Order in a manner that violates federal law or the Constitution, Plaintiffs can promptly seek relief, which the district court and this court can decide in as expeditious a manner as circumstances require.”
Circuit Judges Patricia Millett, Robert Wilkins, and Gregory Katsas were on the panel.
The ruling came after a different federal judge in June blocked the order in about two dozen states and the District of Columbia, which had sued the administration in federal court in Massachusetts. The judge said that the order went beyond the powers of the president.
In a 2–1 decision over the weekend, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit panel upheld the ruling. A majority of the panel said that if the order were allowed to take effect for the upcoming elections, “it would sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters.”
The Trump administration on Sunday then asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Government lawyers said that courts could not enjoin executive orders until agencies take actions on those orders.
The injunction irreparably harms the government because even if plans to implement the executive order “end up being entirely lawful, there is not enough time to obtain ordinary appellate relief from the injunction in order to carry them out before the November election,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the nation’s top court.
On Tuesday, the District of Columbia Circuit panel said they could not consider recent actions taken by the government.
“Since appealing, Plaintiffs have informed this court of subsequent factual developments bearing on the ripeness of their claims,” the judges said. “We do not consider those developments because they are not part of the record before the district court or before us on appeal.”
“Big win from the D.C. Circuit affirming POTUS efforts to keep our elections safe and fair,” Brett Shumate, an assistant attorney general, said in a statement.
A law firm representing plaintiffs in the case did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
