The Brief

The Supreme Court has paused a lower court's ruling that blocked key directives from President Trump's executive order to restrict mail-in voting for this fall's midterm election in about two dozen states and Washington, D.C.

But with the start of absentee voting for the midterms just weeks away, legal and practical hurdles loom over whether the U.S. Postal Service and other federal agencies can finish carrying out Trump's directives.

Released Monday, the order marks the latest court action in the legal fight over Trump's March order — one of many efforts he has made to try to exert control over how elections are run.

As part of a separate but related lawsuit, the U.S. Postal Service remains blocked from following Trump's directives under a nationwide ruling released Aug. 11 by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston.

The Supreme Court did not weigh in on the legality of Trump's executive order, which has so far not directly affected eligible absentee voters' option to cast ballots by mail.

In June, Talwani issued an earlier ruling that blocked key parts of Trump's order in the 23 mainly Democratic-led states, plus Washington, D.C., that sued the administration.

Trump's order calls for the Department of Homeland Security to develop state lists of adult U.S. citizens and for the Postal Service to obtain lists of eligible mail voters from states. According to the order, USPS is supposed to deliver mail-in ballots only to people on those lists. All election officials would also be required to have certain barcodes on their mail ballot envelopes.

The Postal Service has released a final rule for federal ballot mail in response to Trump's order.

Trump — who himself voted by mail as recently as this year in Florida — has said he issued this order to stop illegal voting by non-U.S. citizens in federal elections, which research has found to be infinitesimally rare.

Talwani's June ruling concluded Trump overstepped a president's authority under the Constitution, which gives power to state legislatures and Congress to set federal election rules. USPS, which is independent of a president's administration, also has no legal authority to control mail-in voting, the judge found.

The Supreme Court has now granted emergency requests from the administration and 12 Republican-led states to pause the judge's June ruling in 23 states and Washington, D.C., while not weighing in on the legality of Trump's order.

It remains unclear what impact the high court's order will actually have on eligible mail-in voters.

The legal fight is likely far from over, with a separate set of lawsuits led by Democrats and voting rights groups continuing to play out as this fall's election draws closer.

The administration has previously acknowledged the shrinking window of opportunity for the administration to implement Trump's order for this year's midterms. In a July court filing, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that there may not be enough time to resolve the legal challenges through the appeals process with the courts.

"That is especially true because implementation efforts for any USPS rule or DHS policy will need to begin well before November—indeed, as soon as early to mid-August—to be effective for the 2026 election, particularly given that absentee and mail-in voting begin (in some States) several weeks prior to Election Day," Sauer noted.

Editor's note: USPS is a financial supporter of NPR.

Edited by Benjamin Swasey
Copyright 2026 NPR

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Lineage Logistics walked back its report that it had removed more than 100% of food waste from its burned Boyle Heights warehouse, acknowledging the figure misled residents about how much rotting food remains inside. 

The company also pushed back its timeline for when it would finish food removal until Aug. 30, about a week behind the deadlines required by a South Coast Air Quality Management District order from earlier this month. That could open the company up to fines, though AQMD didn’t immediately respond to The LA Local about what consequences Lineage would face.

Lineage last week reported through a community update that it had removed 104% of the rancid food waste from the warehouse, a figure that confused many residents because cleanup was not complete. A company spokesperson admitted that the percentage was misleading for residents who have voiced their frustration about putrid air, the health hazards of living near the facility and confusion about how long the cleanup will take.

Lineage Logistics walked back its report that it had removed more than 100% of food waste from its burned Boyle Heights warehouse, acknowledging the figure misled residents about how much rotting food remains inside.

In a community update on Sunday, Aug. 23, Lineage said that Freezer 2 has been demolished and all food waste removed, and that Freezer 1, the remaining room, is 92% clean of food waste.

“Our prior reporting percentages tied weight removed from the building relative to our estimates of total food weight at the time of the fire,” reads a statement from Lineage. “That approach produced figures greater than 100% in our reporting this week, potentially creating the misimpression that food removal waste was complete when it is not.”

It added that moving forward, the company would measure 100% cleanup when “food waste removal is fully done.”

The revised calculations for cleanup completion come after questions from residents and reporting by The LA Local and Boyle Heights Beat about how Lineage has been reporting its progress and how that progress is being verified by public officials.

The cleanup progress has been largely based on the company’s estimates.

The LA Local obtained a copy of the daily reports Lineage is required to send to AQMD, showing that the company reports to the oversight agency the number of waste bins of food they remove each day and estimates the pounds of food they contain.

The company has already missed multiple deadlines.

Lineage failed to meet the Aug. 20 deadline for bulk food cleanup established by the order it agreed to with AQMD. There is a second approaching deadline, disinfecting the remaining freezer facility after all the food is removed, which is scheduled for Aug. 27.

AQMD did not immediately respond to The LA Local’s inquiries about what consequences Lineage faces for violating that order.

Lineage also missed a 45-day cleanup deadline on Aug. 14 that Mayor Karen Bass imposed in early July. Bass said the city could pursue a civil suit against the company. 

Lineage said that it expects to spend about $100 million on cleanup, and stressed that it has been working diligently to remove the food and damaged materials from the remaining freezer room.

“We are not pausing, slowing, or reducing our work in any way. If anything, this final stretch demands more focused effort, not less urgency, and we are treating it that way,” the press release reads.

Southern California firefighters and emergency preparedness groups are praising new statewide rules for homes in fire-prone areas.

They’re also raising concerns about the burden they say will fall on homeowners.

The California Board of Forestry and Fire Prevention voted last week to adopt the rules after years of debate, delays and missed deadlines. They are the strictest rules in the country for home fire mitigation.

They will apply to almost 2 million homes across California in areas that CalFire designates as having some of the highest fire risk, defined as State Responsibility Areas and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

That applies to large swaths of Los Angeles and Orange counties.

Zone Zero details

The rules regulate what can be within 5 feet of a home, an area known as Zone Zero. They prohibit any plants within at least the first foot from the home — or farther, depending on the size of a structure’s eaves. Then, within the first 5 feet, no combustible material is allowed, including dead leaves and branches, mulch, woodchips and firewood.

Other new rules ban wooden fences that are attached to houses and wooden sheds within Zone Zero. Local fire authorities will be responsible for enforcement and have some flexibility to tailor the rules to specific communities.

Once the rules are formally adopted next month, Californians with existing homes will have five years to comply. New construction projects will have to comply immediately.

A public comment period on the new rules is open until Sept. 2.

Tough, but necessary

Fire safety groups acknowledge the necessity of rules and the burdens they will likely place on property owners.

“We're a supporter of actions that help move the needle forward toward resiliency. That's what this does,” said Brent Woodworth, chief executive of the Los Angeles Emergency Preparedness Foundation, a leading advocacy group for disaster preparedness.

The organization also independently assesses homes for wildfire risk and resiliency at homeowners’ request, primarily in communities in and around the Santa Monica Mountains.

Woodworth sees the new rules as a reasonable approach to better protect homes and communities from disastrous blazes, especially after the devastation wrought by the Palisades and Eaton fires.

He hopes it will help create a culture in Southern California that embraces fire mitigation.

But he knows the new rules likely won’t be welcomed by everyone.

“ It's going to take a lot to convince people to do this,” Woodworth said. “But this is a pretty decent start to try to get this culture shift going.”

CalFire started the rule-making process in 2020, and some homeowners have been pushing back ever since. Some feel it’s an overreach of their property rights or may just not want to see their gardens changed. Others are worried about the financial burden of removing vegetation, trees or wooden fences.

“There was such shock in the community from folks about how much work and what it's going to cost them to do. This is a huge burden on many people,” said James Grasso, president of the Topanga Coalition for Emergency Preparedness, a volunteer group serving Topanga, Malibu and surrounding areas.

Grasso said that’s particularly true in Topanga, where many homes are built in and around countless oak trees. He called for more incentives, grants or other financial assistance to help people cover mitigation work.

Overall, though, Grasso thinks the approved rules are a good compromise. The state originally proposed banning all vegetation within Zone Zero. He pointed to the gradual implementation timeline and the decision to allow some plants within 5 feet of homes.

He also hopes localized enforcement will allow for some flexibility that will accommodate Southern California communities' varied needs.

For firefighters, mitigation makes a difference

Local fire departments in charge of enforcing the new rules, and responsible for putting out fires once they start, emphasized the need for the changes.

Juan Huerta, a fire marshal with the Orange County Fire Authority, said less combustible material in Zone Zero helps keep blazes more contained and easier for firefighters to manage by making it harder for houses to catch fire.

A recent study from UC Berkeley found the more defensible space around a structure, the higher chance it has of surviving a fire.

 ”When you're talking about these embers that potentially ignite homes that much farther away, we don't necessarily always have the same resources in those areas,” Huerta said.  ”The goal is to help eliminate another variable.”

He urged homeowners to consider implementing other mitigation tools, too, including fire-resistant cladding for homes or mesh that prevents embers from entering vents.

He is sympathetic to peoples’ concerns over the changes, especially the costs, and wants to help the public to understand why the measures are necessary.

“ We will be working with the residents, providing as much education and outreach as we can to help everyone really understand what the requirements are, but also why it's important,” he said.

Huerta’s team is already inspecting properties in at-risk areas of Orange County.

If a home is non-compliant, they will issue a violation notice and follow up until the problem is resolved.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Wildfires once ran on deadlines.

After a series of catastrophic blazes in the early 20th century, the U.S. Forest Service sought to show it was able to control and protect forests under its care. In 1933, the agency mandated the “10 a.m. rule,” declaring that any wildland fire should be extinguished by 10 a.m. the day after it was reported.

Snuffing all fires quickly, the agency reasoned, would prevent disasters like the Big Burn of 1910. That incident scorched more than 3 million acres along the Montana-Idaho border during a 36-hour rampage, killing at least 85 people and destroying five towns.

Unlike earthquakes or tornadoes, wildfires have weaknesses. We can suppress flames with water or retardant chemicals. Wildland fire crews remove fuels with hand tools and bulldozers. Sometimes they use tactical burnouts — literally fighting fire with fire.

These tools can obscure crucial facts about wildfire and reinforce strategies that can backfire.

Tales of heroism following the Big Burn established the Forest Service as a necessary government service. As New York Times reporter Tim Egan put it, “To this day, I think that agency owes its existence to this fire.”

But Egan also described the consequences of that successful effort to control wildfire: “Actively trying to put out every fire left a lot of standing dead timber. So some of the big fires we had in the latter 20th century, including the Yellowstone fires of 1988 and some of the Idaho fires of the late 1990s, and fires still to come, are the result of having timber that probably should have burned every now and then during the seasonal fires.”

Rocky Mountain Research Station scientist David Calkin described the phenomenon as the “Wildfire Paradox” in a 2013 article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Using wildfire suppression to eliminate large and damaging wildfires ensures the inevitable occurrence of these fires,” Calkin wrote. “Wildfire suppression, effective 95% to 98% of the time, inevitably leads to ecologically significant wildfires with higher intensities and rapid growth that are unable to be suppressed.”

Fire researchers began to notice the paradox in the 1960s, and began implementing “let burn” strategies in remote forests to reduce those fuel loads. The Forest Service modified the “10 a.m. rule” in 1971 to allow some fires to burn, and officially abandoned the policy in 1978.

Over the following decades, wildfire managers adapted to a changing climate, shifting public opinion and funding challenges.

A mid-century moist period began drying out toward the tail of the 20^th century. The 1988 fires in and around Yellowstone National Park burned 1.4 million acres in one of America’s best-known landscapes. Colorado’s South Canyon fire in 1994 killed 14 wildland firefighters and prompted major federal fire policy reviews.

One of the most consequential shifts was the growing focus on the wildland-urban interface, or WUI — the increasing overlap between private homes and fire-prone landscapes.

Several record-breaking fire seasons in the early 2000s made federal budget watchers aware that the Forest Service was spending more to fight fire than almost anything else in its mission, and frequently didn’t have enough funding to do so. In 2017, federal wildfire suppression costs topped $2 billion — six times as much as was spent in the 1990s.

The year 2018 produced one of the worst wildfire seasons in history and included the Camp Fire, which killed more than 80 people in and around Paradise, Calif.

More recently, political pressure for a more aggressive response to wildfire has renewed fire suppression.

Last June, President Donald Trump issued an executive order “Empowering Commonsense Wildfire Prevention and Response,” which in its first sentence declared “The devastation of the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires shocked the American people and highlighted the catastrophic consequences when State and local governments are unable to quickly respond to such disasters.” 

Draft versions of the policy included a return to the 10 a.m. rule, according to numerous sources in the wildfire community.

“No one was dumb enough to use 10 a.m. policy language, but there was fear of a fire getting away,” said Bobbie Scopa, a 45-year firefighting veteran who worked at the local, state and federal levels and now is vice president of the advocacy group Grassroots Wildland Firefighters.

“Anytime you light a fire or purposefully don’t put out a fire, you own it and you own every bad thing that can happen. You’re taking a risk when you do that,” Scopa said.

Draft versions of the Fix Our Forests Act also included a call for full suppression of all wildfires.

Matt Weiner, CEO of the advocacy group Megafire Action, said putting that into law would have had dangerous consequences.

“We were able to get that out of it,” Weiner said. “And long-term, we will push aggressively against the 10 a.m. rule being included in statute anywhere. We don’t want to just create a suppression super-agency. We want a system that recognizes the need for a lot more beneficial fire on the landscape.”

Nevertheless, at a July 22 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture, Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz told members of Congress his agency remained committed to prioritizing aggressive initial attack on wildfire this year.

“Keeping fire small protects firefighters, communities and also saves funding,” Schultz said. “I assure you every fire has a full-suppression strategy.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.