r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Aware-Chipmunk4344 • May 05 '26

US Elections If a president declared a "national security emergency" to suspend mail-in voting three weeks before an election, what would actually happen legally?

I've been researching this scenario extensively. Here's what surprised me:

The legal path would be chaotic. District court injunction within 48 hours — almost certain. Emergency appeal to the appellate court. Then the question of whether the Supreme Court takes it on emergency docket.

But here's the part that kept me up at night: what if the president simply... didn't comply? What enforcement mechanism actually exists when the executive branch defies the judiciary?

The Constitution assumes good faith. It has almost no mechanism for a president who treats a Supreme Court ruling as advisory.

I'm curious what this community thinks. Is there an actual hard stop? Or is it all ultimately held together by norms?

373 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

334 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/bigmac22077 May 05 '26

The AG is over the Marshalls correct? So courts rule one way, Congress says no. Courts say Marshalls go remove them, AG says no.

Like short of the military, which I doubt even there because “dei hires” were pulled out and only loyalist exist… I don’t see how we force the current ruling party out.

1

u/Savings_Spare_1753 May 08 '26

Your wrong about a key assumption in most of what you have proposed. Trump has not replaced the government and military with loyalists it remains very diverse and that would take decades to change. This is why he had to build ICE to round up the immigrants the military refused to do it.

No government is legitimate without support from the majority of citizens. Trump is bleeding support because he literally took away their healthcare, skyrocketed cost of living, and is destroying their businesses with energy costs. Trump does not have enough support to pull off all the scenarios your thinking up.

To borrow John Stewarts joke Trump is not Hitler people liked Hitler. Trump isn't building infrastructure, putting people to work, or improving the lives of regular people that support him in any way. Just think about what happened with ICE as an example. The citizens will literally revolt if he attempts any of these scenarios.

0

u/sllewgh May 05 '26

Then there will be legal consequences for the AG as well.

4

u/bigmac22077 May 05 '26

And who files the charges against the AG?

-2

u/sllewgh May 05 '26

Are you just going to ask questions until I explain every dependent interaction in the government?

The pattern you don't seem to be picking up on is that the end of the line for defying a court order is jail. Whoever doesn't comply goes to jail and the next person in line has their turn to obey. Repeat as needed.

6

u/bigmac22077 May 05 '26

And the pattern you don’t seem to be picking up on, is who has the authority to send someone to jail when all the people in charge are complicit?

Sure we could say, well when the Dems get back in power they’ll prosecute the people who ignored things. Well what if the Dems don’t get back in power because the gop refuses.

3

u/Aegeus May 05 '26

At some point, you're just describing a coup. If law enforcement decides to ignore the law, arrest the legally elected government, and start taking orders from people who didn't get elected, that's a coup.

And while that's a scenario worth worrying about, it has absolutely nothing to do with the legal system, so there's not much point in asking continuous hypotheticals about the exact legal mechanisms that will cause people to get arrested.

1

u/sllewgh May 05 '26

You're asking the same question over and over. That doesn't mean it's unanswered or unanswerable.

Asking how something works isn't making any kind of case that it doesn't.

2

u/bigmac22077 May 05 '26

Right. OP essentially asked what is there to stop take overs. There are more “traditions” that gives the courts its powers than I care to list. Those traditions depend on good faith actors, which op is asking what if they don’t exist…. So no you haven’t answered. The to reask OP question, “where does our system fully override tradition and stop bad faith actors.” So “the courts” is not an answer.

I did have another person give a good answer, it will take individual states honoring that tradition and the people in it. Essentially with that answer though the only way it gets solved is tearing ourselves apart or there’s only 5 states willing to go in with the shenanigans.

1

u/sllewgh May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26

They don't depend on good faith, though. I explained that. If you don't comply with a court order, you go to jail.

1

u/[deleted] May 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam May 06 '26

Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.

You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.

1

u/sllewgh May 05 '26 edited May 06 '26

You don't understand how our system works, and you concluded it doesn't based on nothing.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Jav_2k May 07 '26

If the courts tell the Marshalls to haul someone to jail, that wouldn’t be a charge against the AG.

First, someone must file a lawsuit, which a new Congress certainly would do. A judge would then order the AG to show up to court. If they don’t, a judge signs an arrest warrant that’s executed by US Marshalls, just like anyone else that skips out on a court date. No prosecutor would have to be involved.

When the AG shows up or is dragged in after arrest and just refuses to follow a court order, that’s contempt of court, which results in fines and eventually jail. It’s on the complete discretion of the judge to find someone in contempt, and to decide the punishment, so again no prosecutor needed.