The Trump administration has turned to the U.S. Supreme Court in a bid to revive restrictions on mail-in voting, escalating a legal fight that could reshape how millions of Americans cast ballots in November's midterm elections. The emergency request, filed Monday by the Justice Department, seeks to overturn lower court rulings that blocked key provisions of a March executive order. Main Developments The Justice Department's filing asks the high court to pause a nationwide injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in June. That ruling had blocked the executive order in 23 Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C., on grounds that Trump lacked constitutional authority to unilaterally alter state election procedures. Judge Talwani's decision was upheld over the weekend by the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to pause the injunction. The administration now argues that the order merely provides "general policy guidance" rather than binding directives, and that agencies are still deliberating implementation. Read also: UN Chief Condemns Israeli Settlement Expansion in West Bank Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in the filing that the lower court "preemptively decided" that any agency action would be unlawful. He urged the Supreme Court to act by August so the policy can take effect before the midterms. Background The executive order, signed in March, directed federal agencies to assist states in creating lists of eligible voters. It also required the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to individuals on those lists, and instructed the Justice Department to prioritize investigations of election officials suspected of issuing ballots to ineligible voters. President Trump has long claimed, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud tainted the 2020 presidential election. He has repeatedly questioned the security of mail-in voting, despite studies showing such fraud is rare. The midterm elections will determine control of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Voting rights advocates argue that restricting mail-in voting could disproportionately affect Democratic voters, who have historically been more likely than Republicans to vote by mail. The Constitution assigns states the primary role in setting voter-eligibility requirements, a point Judge Talwani emphasized in her ruling. Why It Matters The Supreme Court's decision will set a precedent on the limits of presidential power over federal elections. If the administration prevails, states could face new federal requirements for voter list matching and ballot delivery, potentially altering voting access for millions. The case also tests the balance between state election authority and federal executive action. For voters, the outcome could directly affect how they cast ballots in the midterms. Mail-in voting has become a significant method of participation, especially since the pandemic, and any new restrictions may shift turnout patterns. What's Next The Supreme Court will decide whether to grant the emergency request and potentially hear the full case. The administration has asked for a decision by August to allow time for implementation before November. Legal challenges from the affected states and Washington, D.C., are expected to continue regardless of the high court's ruling.