Expert flabbergasted as court issues 'high-stakes judicial intervention' against Trump

A legal expert was flabbergasted by a recent ruling handed down against the Trump administration, calling it a "high-stakes judicial intervention" that could preserve many Americans' right to vote.

Last week, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump administration's attempt to choke off mail-in ballots by prohibiting the U.S. Postal Service from delivering ballots after Election Day was illegal. That rule would have disenfranchised many voters, especially senior citizens and military members deployed overseas.

Dave Aronberg, the former State Attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, said on a new episode of the "Legal AF" podcast that the case sets a "massive precedent" for future elections.

"This is not just bureaucratic red tape. This is a high-stakes judicial intervention to ensure that the machinery of the federal government doesn't accidentally disenfranchise thousands of voters," Aronberg said.

He added that the Trump administration's attempts to meddle with elections by using the Postal Service date back to the first administration. The administration was sued by the NAACP at the time over several changes that would have delayed mail processing times. As part of the settlement for that case, Aronberg noted that the Postal Service "agreed to prioritize monitoring and timely delivery of election mail."

Sullivan cited that agreement in his ruling, which declared illegal a March 31 executive order Trump issued attempting to rewrite it. That, in turn, could be a powerful tool for election watchers to stave off the impact of future election shenanigans from the Trump administration, Aronberg noted.

"So, what's the legacy of this ruling?" Aronberg said. "Well, it establishes a powerful legal precedent. It shows that federal courts will aggressively monitor the rules Trump puts forward to ensure they don't violate your right to vote, which is great. And that if federal agencies continue to play games, and if their failures threaten constitutional rights, well, you can't just use logistics as a shield to justify disenfranchising voters."