A U.S. appeals court on Saturday upheld a lower court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting in nearly half of all states. The decision, issued by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reinforced an earlier injunction from U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani in Boston, which had already halted enforcement of the order for the November midterm elections. The ruling came after a lawsuit filed by Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia, arguing the order violated constitutional principles by overstepping presidential authority over election procedures. The Trump administration had sought to implement the order, which required the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to compile a “state citizenship list” of eligible voters. Under the directive, the U.S. Postal Service would be instructed to deliver mail ballots only to individuals on that list. The policy aimed to prevent non-citizens from casting votes by mail, a claim President Trump repeatedly emphasized as necessary to combat fraud. He described the alleged problem as “legendary,” though critics dismissed such claims as baseless. State election officials, however, warned that the measure could lead to widespread disenfranchisement and administrative chaos. They argued that the requirement to verify voter eligibility through a centralized list would place an undue burden on local governments, particularly in areas with limited resources. Many states rely on existing voter registration databases and do not require additional verification for mail ballots. The legal challenge contended that the order exceeded the president’s constitutional power and undermined the established framework for conducting elections. Judge Talwani, appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued the initial injunction in June, preventing the administration from enforcing the order in the 23 states that had filed the lawsuit. Her ruling was based on the argument that the order conflicted with state and federal laws governing elections. The appeals court affirmed her decision, finding no justification for overturning the injunction. The panel consisted of three judges, none of whom were affiliated with the Trump administration. The White House has yet to respond publicly to the ruling, though the Justice Department has previously indicated its intent to appeal decisions that challenge the administration’s policies. Legal experts suggest that the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court, given the high stakes and the potential for conflicting interpretations of executive authority. The outcome of such a review could have far-reaching implications for future election administration and the balance of powers between the federal government and individual states. The dispute highlights ongoing tensions between the current administration and state-level election authorities, many of which have historically opposed efforts to restrict access to voting. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding electoral processes and reinforcing the principle that election rules must be determined through legislative and judicial channels rather than executive fiat. As the November elections approach, the decision will likely influence how states prepare for ballot collection and tabulation, with some jurisdictions already planning alternative measures to ensure voter participation.
8 izvještaja
Apelacijski sud podržava blokade na Trumpovu naredbu o ograničavanju glasanja poštomApelacijski sud je u subotu presudio da će održati ograničenja nametnuta izvršnom uredbom predsjednika Trumpa koja je usmjerena na ograničavanje glasanja putem pošte.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku je predstavljena sudska odluka bez otvorene kritike ili pohvale bilo koje strane, iako se navode implikacije presude protiv Trumpovog stava.
Zašto činjenice (94): The article accurately reports the Trump administration's request to the Supreme Court and the current status of the legal battle. It aligns with the cross-source consensus on the timeline and legal actions taken.
Zašto objektivnost (85): The article remains relatively neutral in tone, presenting the facts without overtly favoring either side. However, it does include some language that subtly supports the opposition to the Trump order.
CBS News (US)NeovisanSredinaČinjenice 90Objektivnost 85prije 6 danaDana 26. srpnja 2026. američki žalbeni sud potvrdio je presudu nižeg suda koja je blokirala izvršnu naredbu predsjednika Trumpa koja je imala za cilj ograničiti glasanje putem pošte.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak predstavlja uravnotežen prikaz obje strane pitanja, detaljno opisujući argumente Trumpove administracije i suprotne tvrdnje državnih dužnosnika i demokratskih vođa.
Zašto činjenice (90): The article presents the facts of the Trump mail-in voting order and the court's decision to uphold the ruling blocking it. It cites the court names, dates, and legal arguments without embellishment, aligning with the cross-source consensus.
Zašto objektivnost (85): The article maintains a neutral tone, reporting the court's decision and the arguments from both sides without apparent bias.
ReasonStranački povezanKonzervativnoČinjenice 90Objektivnost 85prije 11 danaVrhovni sud SAD-a pristao je razmotriti slučaj koji uključuje klauzulu o prekomjernim novčanim kaznama Osmog amandmana, posebno fokusirajući se na zakone o oduzimanju imovine.
Procjena pristranosti (Konzervativno): Članak kritizira poštovanje koje se daje zakonodavnom tijelu nad vlasničkim pravima i tvrdi da oduzimanje imovine velike vrijednosti zbog malog prekršaja krši načelo proporcionalnosti u skladu s klauzulom o prekomjernim novčanim kaznama.
Zašto činjenice (90): This article closely matches the other reports on the case, providing accurate information about the Supreme Court's decision to review the case, the charges against Jouppi, and the legal arguments involved.
Zašto objektivnost (85): The tone remains neutral, focusing on the facts and quoting Jouppi's statements without overt bias.
CBS News (US)NeovisanSredinaČinjenice 90Objektivnost 85prije 11 dana Vrhovni sud će razmotriti ponudu Aljaske da zaplijeni avion preko šest paketa piva.Vrhovni sud SAD-a pristao je preispitati slučaj u kojem je sudjelovao pilot Kenneth Jouppi iz Aljaske, koji tvrdi da su državne vlasti nezakonito zaplijenile njegov zrakoplov vrijedan 95.000 dolara nakon što je putnik donio šest paketa piva na letu u suho selo.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak predstavlja obje strane pravnog spora bez otvorene ideološke sklonosti. izvještava o pravnim argumentima i Jouppijevog obrambenog tima i ureda državnog odvjetnika Aljaske, citirajući izjave obje strane.
Zašto činjenice (90): The article accurately reports the case details, including the timeline, the charges, and the legal proceedings. It aligns with other sources and presents the facts without significant deviation.
Zašto objektivnost (85): The article maintains a balanced tone, presenting the facts and Jouppi's perspective without introducing strong subjective language.
ReasonStranački povezanKonzervativnoČinjenice 85Objektivnost 80prije 11 dana Vrhovni sud pristaje da sasluša slučaj pilota iz Aljaske čiji je avion vrijedan 95.000 dolara zaplijenjen zbog šest paketa piva.Vrhovni sud SAD-a pristao je preispitati slučaj u kojem je sudjelovao pilot Ken Jouppi, čiji je zrakoplov vrijedan 95.000 dolara zaplijenio državni autoritet zbog prevoza šest paketa piva u suho selo. Jouppi, umirovljeni pilot, osuđen je za prekršaj 2012. godine nakon što su državni vojnici Aljaske pronašli pivo tijekom leta. Proveo je više od deset godina osporavajući državnu upotrebu zakona o oduzimanju imovine, tvrdeći da oduzimanje predstavlja prekomjernu kaznu prema Osmom amandmanu. Vrhovni sud Aljaske prethodno je presudio protiv njega, što je potaknulo njegovu žalbu Vrhovnom sudu SAD-a.
Procjena pristranosti (Konzervativno): Dok je sam problem ustavno optužen, narativ se naginje na podršku individualnim pravima protiv državne moći, a pozicija
Zašto činjenice (85): The article accurately describes the case involving Ken Jouppi and the Supreme Court agreeing to hear his challenge regarding the seizure of his plane. It provides details about the conviction, the asset forfeiture, and the legal arguments. However, it includes quotes from Jouppi and his representat
Zašto objektivnost (80): The tone is generally neutral, presenting both sides of the argument. However, it emphasizes Jouppi's personal story and quotes from his representatives, which slightly leans toward supporting his position.
ABC News (US)NeovisanSredinaČinjenice 85Objektivnost 80prije 12 danaVrhovni sud je pristao preispitati slučaj u kojem je sudjelovao pilot Kenneth Jouppi, koji tvrdi da su državne vlasti nezakonito zaplijenile njegov zrakoplov vrijedan 95.000 dolara nakon što je putnik donio šest paketa piva na letu u suho selo. Jouppi je osuđen za prekršaj zbog prijevoza alkohola u zabranjeno područje i suočen je s gubitkom svog zrakoplova prema zakonima o kaznenom oduzimanju.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak predstavlja obje strane pravnog spora bez otvorene ideološke sklonosti. Izvještava o Jouppijevom argumentu da oduzimanje krši Ustav i obranu države na temelju postojećih pravnih presedana.
Zašto činjenice (85): The article provides accurate information about the case, including the constitutional issues and the stakes involved. It references the legal arguments and the significance of the case, though it does include some interpretive language.
Zašto objektivnost (80): While the article is mostly factual, it includes some interpretive phrasing that suggests the case could have broader implications, which may slightly influence the reader's perception.
NewsweekNeovisanSredinaČinjenice 85Objektivnost 80prije 12 danaVrhovni sud SAD-a pristao je preispitati slučaj u kojem je Alaska zaplijenila pilotov zrakoplov vrijedan 95.000 dolara zbog otkrića piva na letu za suvo selo. Slučaj se usredotočuje na to krši li država zabranu osmog amandmana protiv "prekomjernih kazni". Pilot Kenneth Jouppi, sada u svojim 80-im godinama, tvrdi da je kazna neproporcionalno teška u usporedbi s prekršajem, dok Alaska tvrdi da je zaplijena potrebna kako bi se spriječio ilegalni prijevoz alkohola u udaljene suve zajednice. Slučaj ističe šire rasprave o zakonima o civilnoj zaplijeni i njihovim ustavnim granicama.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): U članku su predstavljene obje strane argumenta bez jasnog ideološkog nagibanja. Opisuje tvrdnju pilota o pretjeranim novčanim kaznama i opravdanje Aljaske za oduzimanje, pružajući uravnoteženo pokrivanje uključenih pravnih i ustavnih pitanja.
Zašto činjenice (85): The article accurately outlines the case and the legal questions at stake. It references the constitutional provisions and the potential impact of the ruling, while noting the involvement of advocacy groups.
Zašto objektivnost (80): The article presents the case fairly but includes some language that frames the issue in terms of broader societal concerns, which may subtly influence the reader's interpretation.
Vrhovni sud će odlučiti je li kazna od 95.000 dolara za šest paketa Budweisera bila poštenja.Vrhovni sud SAD-a pristao je preispitati slučaj koji uključuje novčanu kaznu od 95.000 dolara nametnutu pilotu Aljaske Kennethu Jouppiju zbog prevoza šest konzervi piva u "suvu" zajednicu.
Procjena pristranosti (Sredina): Članak predstavlja obje strane pravnog spora bez da otvoreno favorizira ni tužitelja ni državu Aljasku.
Zašto činjenice (80): The article provides accurate information about the case and the legal arguments, but it includes some subjective commentary about the severity of the penalty and the state's approach to alcohol regulation.
Zašto objektivnost (75): The tone is somewhat more opinionated, especially in phrases like 'Alaska doesn’t mess around' and 'the state came down hard,' which suggest a leaning towards supporting Jouppi's position.
★
Neka vijesti ostanu poštene.
ObjectiveNews financiraju čitatelji i bez oglasa je – pristranost vam pokazujemo, ne skrivamo. Podržite neovisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mjesec.
Postani podupiratelj
United States
