The Supreme Court lifted a June injunction on Monday that had blocked key parts of 
Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting, splitting 6-3 along ideological lines with the three liberal justices in dissent. The order had been blocked by a judge in Massachusetts in a suit brought by 23 mainly Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. Whether the administration can act on the ruling before November remains unsettled.
What did the court actually decide?
Not the legality of the order. The ruling turned on whether the states could bring their challenge when they did, and the unsigned majority said so directly: "The Court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell," Guardian reported.
So the order is now in force?
No. A second, broader injunction still stands. Under a nationwide ruling issued on 11 August by District Judge Indira Talwani, the Postal Service remains blocked from carrying out the directives, NPR reported. It was an earlier Talwani decision, from June, that Monday's ruling addressed.
What does the March order require?
It directs the administration to compile lists of eligible voters and instructs the Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. The Postal Service set out an implementation plan last week, though some states begin sending ballots within weeks. Trump has long treated mail balloting as a target, claiming it breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and his own use of the method.
What did the dissent say?
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision "needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections". The states' case was that the Constitution assigns election rules to states and Congress rather than to the president, and that changes this close to a vote would be, in their attorneys' words, "extreme".
Figures referenced: Donald Trump. — JudgeMarket.
