The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump's bid to restrict mail ballots for the midterm elections, capping a flurry of last-minute legal action with voting already underway.

The decision allows states to continue sending out mail ballots under the same processes they've used for years and have accounted for nearly a third of votes cast.

It represented a stark defeat for Trump on an issue he consistently has emphasized as vital to ensuring election integrity even though there is virtually no evidence of fraud with mail ballots.

The Supreme Court majority wrote that the administration's push to implement the restrictions this year is likely to lose in court, though the brief emergency order didn't detail its reasoning. Two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, publicly dissented.

The Trump administration had asked the justices, once again at the center of a roiling political controversy, to clear the way for restrictions before the pivotal November contests for control of Congress.

Alito wrote in his dissent that the Postal Service "has broad authority to regulate the mail" and likely does have the power to enforce Trump's restrictions.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, agreed that the restrictions should not go into effect for the midterms but indicated he might rule in favor of the Trump administration if the issue comes back before the court at a later time.

Mail ballots are already being sent to voters

Election officials have said there was simply no way to carry out a complete overhaul in the weeks before the midterms. Indeed, Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin began sending mail ballots to voters over the past week while the new system was still not active.

The Trump administration plan would require states to adopt a uniform envelope style and submit lists of eligible voters to an online portal. The Postal Service could refuse to deliver ballots to states that didn't comply.

The administration's efforts had the potential to be especially disruptive in states that send out ballots entirely by mail. Washington's Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, a Democrat, said the decision means work "to carry out a safe, secure, and accurate election" can continue "without having to upend our election processes to meet unrealistic ballot mail requirements."

In Arizona, another largely vote-by-mail state, Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said "it is crucial for us to continue rejecting the notion that access and security are mutually exclusive when it comes to running strong elections."

Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican serving as the state's chief election officer, said on social media that the Supreme Court's decision means "Utahns can have confidence that the 2026 election will proceed as normal."

The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but have in the past framed the restrictions as commonsense changes aimed at keeping elections secure.

State officials and voting rights groups pushed back

Democratic state officials and voting rights groups challenged the restrictions in court, arguing that the president has no constitutional authority to set election rules that would "virtually eliminate mail voting on the eve of a major election."

A whistleblower report, meanwhile, said the postal system's requirements could lead to millions of mail ballots never being sent, because problems with the not-yet-operational portal meant a single bar code error could result in an entire batch of ballots being tossed out.

A federal appeals court has ruled that the United States Energy Department exceeded its authority when it ordered a coal-fired power plant in the US state of Michigan to remain open beyond its planned retirement, dealing a setback to the Trump administration's effort to keep ageing coal facilities operating.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled unanimously on Friday that there was no emergency under federal law that justified keeping the 64-year-old JH Campbell Generating Plant online. Energy Secretary Chris Wright invoked emergency powers last year, arguing that the plant was needed to maintain reliable electricity in the region.

President Donald Trump declared a national energy emergency in an executive order in January last year, citing demand increases from artificial intelligence and data centre growth.

Judge Cornelia Pillard, writing for the three-judge panel, said the emergency provision of the Federal Power Act was intended as a "narrow, last-resort backstop." She said the authority could be used only when immediate action was required, and states or utilities could not address the problem themselves.

Pillard also described the reversal of the plant's "long and carefully planned retirement" as "disruptive".

The plant, operated by Consumers Energy, had been scheduled to close in May 2025, but the company has continued operations under energy department orders. That has cost about $259m, according to financial filings, with opponents warning that the expense could ultimately fall on families and businesses in midwestern US states.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, whose office joined counterparts in Illinois and Minnesota in challenging the orders, welcomed the ruling. She said the appeals court had "thrown out DOE's order that had zero basis in reality".

The Energy Department defended its use of emergency powers, saying the orders helped prevent blackouts and "likely saved hundreds of lives" during periods of peak demand, particularly during severe winter storms in late January and early February. The department said that during the winter storm peak, coal generation in affected areas increased by 25 percent compared to the previous year.

The Michigan case is one of several legal disputes that have emerged across the country. Secretary Wright issued another emergency order, just hours after the ruling, to a coal plant in Centralia, Washington, to remain in operation. Similar orders have been issued for plants in Indiana, Colorado and Florida, as well as an oil and gas plant in Pennsylvania.

Right-leaning legal activists along with Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company have brought sweeping challenges against a cornerstone of legal enforcement in the United States: the right of private groups, people and local governments to sue over violations of many major laws.

Their argument, supported by the Trump administration, is that the Constitution reserves tremendous power for the president and federal agencies to decide how — or whether at all — to enforce federal law. They contend Congress should never have handed that power to others through so-called citizen suits that are part of environmental, campaign finance and certain other laws.

Environmentalists say it would be devastating to lose this essential, decades-old tool that is used to impose fines and halt lawbreaking by bad actors. Citizen suits, for example, have extracted millions from heavily polluting oil and gas operations, and ensured that lead pipes in Flint, Michigan, would be removed after its water crisis.

Legal experts say four pending federal cases — one of them filed last week — are moving forward at a time when the conservative majority on the Supreme Court gives opponents of citizen suits a greater chance than ever of success. The hard part for those opponents now is winning early federal cases and creating disagreement between the country’s appeals courts, which may help convince the Supreme Court the issue is important enough for a nationwide ruling.

Back in 2000, a Supreme Court opinion opened the door for that possibility.

“Many of us who worked in this area have been waiting basically 26 years for this shoe to drop,” said Richard Lazarus, a Harvard professor with decades of experience in environmental law.

Lazarus was referring to former moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s comments in a Clean Water Act case that citizen suits raised “difficult and fundamental” questions about whether they improperly dilute executive power. The late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a dissenting opinion in the same case that citizen suits turn “over to private citizens the function of enforcing the law.” He avoided explicitly saying they were constitutional.

“The court is more like Scalia’s court since he died than it ever was when he was there,” said Lazarus.

He observed that those who lost cases where Scalia dissented are rushing back to today’s court hoping for a more favorable result.

The critical issue for citizen suits is who — the government or private citizens — collects fines and has control. A person filing a citizen suit must tell the government ahead of time. The government can stop the suit if it sufficiently pursues the case itself, but its options are limited and the person suing can stay involved. Citizen suits can force compliance with the law and result in fines, which go to the U.S. Treasury.

The European Union on Thursday hit Google with a fine of 890 million euros ($1 billion) after it said the technology behemoth broke digital antitrust regulations by setting up Google Play and its ubiquitous search engine to corral consumers towards its own services and apps to the detriment of competitors.

It was the latest major crackdown on Big Tech by Brussels, which has led the world in reining in some of the world's largest companies from Silicon Valley to Beijing.

It has done so despite the risk of incurring the wrath of President Donald Trump, who has lashed out at the 27-nation bloc's digital regulations amid a broader campaign against Europe: imposing high tariffs, making threats to seize Greenland from Denmark by force, and rattling trust within the NATO military alliance.

In the past, Trump has threatened retaliation if American tech companies are penalized.

Google had recently lost its appeal of a $4.5 billion antitrust fine imposed by the EU for throttling competition and reducing consumer choice through the dominance of its mobile Android operating system.

The European Commission, the bloc's executive branch and highest antitrust enforcer, said it was acting in the interest of consumers after an investigation of Google.

“The best products should succeed because they’re better, not because they’re owned by the company running the search engine. And European consumers have a right to be told by app developers where to sign up to the best offers, even when the app store owner does not get a cut,” said Teresa Ribera, the commission’s Executive Vice President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition.

Google’s President of Global Affairs Kent Walker blasted the fine as “product degradation driven by a small group of self-serving complainants” that will have a negative impact on European businesses and consumers.

He said that the EU’s Digital Markets Act forces Google “to strip away real-time search features Europeans love — like instant pricing and direct availability for hotels, flights, and restaurants — and dismantle safety protections on Google Play.”

The EU describes the world’s seven tech giants — Amazon, Apple, Google parent Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft and TikTok owner ByteDance — as “gatekeepers” that control access for consumers.

“In the EU, businesses have the right to compete fairly. Gatekeepers have the obligation to ensure a level playing field and consumers the right to choose for cheaper alternative offers,” European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said. Alphabet reported $403 billion in revenue in 2025.

A former forensic analyst with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation pleaded guilty Tuesday to four felony counts stemming from accusations that she manipulated and omitted data to speed up the DNA testing process, calling into question the validity of hundreds of criminal cases.

Yvonne "Missy" Woods entered guilty pleas to committing a cybercrime, perjury, attempting to influence a public servant and forgery. Dozens of other counts were dismissed as part of a plea agreement.

Woods was set to stand trial later this year. Instead, she'll face between 8 and 16 years in prison when she's sentenced in September.

Woods and her attorneys declined to talk to reporters after Tuesday's hearing.

Authorities accused Woods, who resigned in 2023 after a decades-long career, of altering data to conceal tampering, deleting data that showed she failed to troubleshoot issues within the testing process and not thoroughly documenting tests performed in case records.

The investigation into Woods' misconduct began in September 2023 after an intern at the bureau discovered missing information in a case that Woods handled in 2018. According to an arrest affidavit, Woods allegedly told investigators at one point that she had changed data to complete cases more quickly.

Problems with the scientist's work were found in cases involving homicide, sexual assault, robbery and other crimes, according to a law enforcement affidavit. Prosecutors were forced to review hundreds of cases.

At least one murder conviction was overturned as a result of Woods' misconduct. Michael Clark was released from prison in 2025 after his lawyers argued that DNA evidence in the case was mishandled by Woods, but prosecutors are seeking to retry him.

In at least two cases, both homicides, the defendants received lesser sentences under plea deals than they could have faced if they went to trial because prosecutors were afraid Woods' involvement could lead to acquittals. Convictions in other cases also are being challenged in courts across Colorado.

State officials have said that the response to Woods' actions could end up costing more than $11 million.

The state investigation bureau in a statement issued Tuesday described Woods' actions as intentional criminal fraud and said it didn't reflect the bureau's practices.

"This moment is not about moving on, for CBI it's about moving forward," said Armando Saldate, bureau director. "Today's guilty plea is an important moment of accountability."

The bureau said it has been making changes and is committed to following best practices used nationwide in forensic science.