And if this Executive Order had actually directed the USPS to stop delivering mail-in ballots, then the states would have certainly been able to establish that the EO had created a live case or controversy sufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirements of the courts.

Per PBS:
The USPS published a proposed rule (first floated June 2, 2026) implementing President Trump’s March 2026 executive order on mail voting. Postmaster General David Steiner told a Senate committee that, if adopted, the rule would have USPS withhold mail ballots from states that don’t hand over to the federal government lists of people who requested absentee or mail ballots.

So, let’s say Trump issues an EO that directs the USPS to stop delivering mail-in ballots (for states withholding voter lists to the Executive branch) 30 days prior to the election, when most states start sending out mail-in ballots.

Do we have to rely on a Trump-compliant SCOTUS to use the Purcell principle that Courts — especially federal courts — should be reluctant to change election rules in the period close to an election, because last-minute changes can confuse voters, strain election administrators, and undermine public confidence in the results, even if the change is otherwise legally justified?

Even if the SCOTUS says the states now have standing and this EO is invalid, the SCOTUS is feeding directly into election chaos and uncertainty, which is exactly what Trump wants.

The current SCOTUS opinion is gutless because it creates confusion and undermines public confidence.