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 poročil
Pritožbeno sodišče podpira blokado Trumpovega naloga o omejevanju glasovanja po poštiPritožbeno sodišče je v soboto odločilo, da bo ohranilo omejitve, uvedene z izvršilnim ukazom predsednika Trumpa, namenjenim omejevanju glasovanja po pošti.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek predstavlja odločitev sodišča, ne da bi odprto kritiziral ali pohvalil katero koli stran, čeprav opozarja na posledice sodbe proti stališču Trumpa.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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)NeodvisenSredinaDejstva 90Objektivnost 85pred 6 dnevi26. julija 2026 je ameriško pritožbeno sodišče potrdilo sodbo nižjega sodišča, ki je blokiralo izvršilni nalog predsednika Trumpa, namenjen omejevanju glasovanja po pošti. Odločitev je zahtevala ustvarjanje "državnega seznama državljanov" in omejeno dostavo glasov po pošti tistim na seznamu. Odločitev je prišla po tem, ko je zvezni sodnik v Bostonu izdal sodno odredbo, ki je preprečila izvršitev naloga v 23 državah, ki so tožile ukrep. Država je trdila, da je ukaz neustaven, in trdila, da volilna pravila določajo države in kongres, ne predsednik. Odločitev vpliva na prihodnje novembrske volitve, čeprav je ukaz še vedno v veljavi v državah, ki niso vključene v tožbo.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek predstavlja uravnoteženo poročilo o obeh straneh vprašanja, ki podrobno opisuje argumente, ki jih je izrekla Trumpova administracija, in nasprotne trditve državnih uradnikov in demokratskih voditeljev.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj objektivnost (85): The article maintains a neutral tone, reporting the court's decision and the arguments from both sides without apparent bias.
ReasonStrankarsko povezanKonservativnoDejstva 90Objektivnost 85pred 11 dneviVrhovno sodišče ZDA se je strinjalo, da bo obravnavalo primer, ki vključuje klavzulo o prekomernih globih osmega amandmaja, ki se posebej osredotoča na zakone o zaplembi premoženja.
Ocena pristranskosti (Konservativno): Članek kritizira spoštovanje zakonodajne oblasti do lastninskih pravic in trdi, da zaprtje premoženja velike vrednosti zaradi manjšega prekrška krši načelo sorazmernosti v skladu s klavzulo o pretiranih globah.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj objektivnost (85): The tone remains neutral, focusing on the facts and quoting Jouppi's statements without overt bias.
CBS News (US)NeodvisenSredinaDejstva 90Objektivnost 85pred 11 dnevi Vrhovno sodišče bo pregledalo zahtevo za zaseg letala zaradi piva.Vrhovno sodišče ZDA se je strinjalo, da bo pregledalo primer, v katerem je bil udeležen pilot iz Aljaske Kenneth Jouppi, ki trdi, da so državne oblasti nezakonito zasegle njegovo letalo v vrednosti 95.000 dolarjev, potem ko je potnik prinesel šest paketov piva na letalo v suho vas.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek predstavlja obe strani pravnega spora brez očitnega ideološkega nagibanja. Poroča o pravnih argumentih tako Jouppijeve ekipe za obrambo kot pisarne generalnega tožilca Aljaske in navaja izjave obeh strani.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj objektivnost (85): The article maintains a balanced tone, presenting the facts and Jouppi's perspective without introducing strong subjective language.
ReasonStrankarsko povezanKonservativnoDejstva 85Objektivnost 80pred 11 dnevi Vrhovno sodišče se je strinjalo, da bo obravnavalo primer pilota iz Aljaske, katerega letalo za 95.000 dolarjev je bilo zaplenjeno zaradi šest paketov piva.Vrhovno sodišče ZDA se je strinjalo, da bo pregledalo primer, v katerem je bil pilot iz Aljaske Ken Jouppi, katerega letalo za 95.000 dolarjev so zaplenili državni organi zaradi prevoza šest paketov piva v suho vas. Jouppi, upokojeni pilot iz gozda, je bil leta 2012 obsojen za prekršek, potem ko so državni policisti Aljaske med letom našli pivo.
Ocena pristranskosti (Konservativno): Članek obravnava primer kot pravno bitko proti vladnim preobremenitvam, poudarja pa potencialno širitev ustavne zaščite pred pretiranimi globami.
Zakaj dejstva (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
Zakaj 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)NeodvisenSredinaDejstva 85Objektivnost 80pred 12 dneviVrhovno sodišče se je strinjalo, da bo pregledalo primer, v katerem je bil udeležen pilot iz Aljaske Kenneth Jouppi, ki trdi, da so državne oblasti nezakonito zasegle njegovo letalo v vrednosti 95.000 dolarjev, potem ko je potnik prinesel šest paketov piva na letalo v suho vas.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku sta predstavljeni obe strani pravnega spora brez očitnega ideološkega nagibanja. Poroča o argumentu Jouppija, da zaplenitev krši ustavo in državno obrambo na podlagi obstoječih pravnih precedensov.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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.
NewsweekNeodvisenSredinaDejstva 85Objektivnost 80pred 12 dneviVrhovno sodišče ZDA se je strinjalo, da bo pregledalo primer, v katerem je Aljaska zaplenila letalo za 95.000 dolarjev zaradi odkritja piva na letalu v suho vas. V primeru se osredotoča na to, ali zaprtje letala krši prepoved osmega amandmaja proti "prekomernim globam". Pilot Kenneth Jouppi, zdaj v svojih 80-ih letih, trdi, da je kazen nesorazmerno težka v primerjavi s prekrškom, medtem ko Aljaska trdi, da je zaprtje potrebno za preprečevanje nezakonitega prevoza alkohola v oddaljene suhe skupnosti.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): Članek predstavlja obe strani argumenta brez jasnega ideološkega nagibanja. Opisuje zahtevo pilota za pretirane globe in utemeljitev Aljaske za zapuščanje, ki zagotavlja uravnoteženo pokritost zadevnih pravnih in ustavnih vprašanj.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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.
Vrhovno sodišče bo odločilo, ali je bila kazen 95.000 dolarjev za šest paketov Budweiserja pravična.Vrhovno sodišče ZDA se je strinjalo, da bo pregledalo primer, v katerem je bil na Aljaski naložen 95.000 dolarjev glob za prevoza šestih pločevink piva v "suho" skupnost.
Ocena pristranskosti (Sredina): V članku so predstavljene obe strani pravnega spora, ne da bi očitno naklonjeni bodisi tožniku ali državi Aljaske.
Zakaj dejstva (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.
Zakaj 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.
★
Ohranimo novice poštene.
ObjectiveNews financirajo bralci in je brez oglasov – pristranskost vam pokažemo, ne skrijemo. Podprite neodvisno novinarstvo za 5 €/mesec.
Postani podpornik
United States
