The Supreme Court's action leaves open the door to the

Supreme Court on Monday lifted a judicial decision blocking President Donald Trump's administration from implementing ​his executive order to restrict the use of mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections that will decide control of Congress — ‌though another remains. The justices granted a Justice Department emergency request to put on hold an injunction that Boston-based U.S.

The three liberal ​justices dissented from the decision. The Supreme Court's action leaves open the door to the states suing again in the coming months as the ​midterm contest approaches. The court did not act, however, on another injunction issued by Talwani on August 11 that blocked the U.S.

The judge issued that order in a separate lawsuit filed by several voting-rights groups. The ​Justice Department had urged the Supreme Court to make clear that its action applied to both of Talwani's injunctions, but the justices did not do so ​on Monday.

Both lawsuits had challenged Trump's order as unconstitutional. TRUMP'S MARCH EXECUTIVE ORDERTrump's executive order, issued in March, directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit to the states a list of U.S.

​The Postal Service recently moved to implement Trump's directive. Trump has vowed to end the use of mail-in ballots nationwide before the midterms, and has long cast doubt on the security of ‌such ballots, ⁠although evidence of voter fraud is rare. Republicans are seeking to retain control of Congress in the hotly contested midterms.

Restricting mail-in ballots would stand to disproportionately benefit Republicans given that Democratic voters traditionally have been more likely to use mail-in ballots than Republican voters. JUDGE RULED TRUMP LACKED AUTHORITYIn June, Talwani ruled that the president lacked the authority to order changes in how states administer federal elections, noting that under the U.S.

​The judge also noted that federal ​agencies lack the ability to compile ⁠accurate citizen lists for each state. The Justice Department had said the lawsuit challenging Trump's directive was premature and that the states did not have the required legal standing at this stage to sue.

The agencies have not yet taken ​any concrete actions that impact the states and so any harm they allege is speculative, the administration said.

The states ​contend that their claims ⁠are not hypothetical and that the administration's "rushed effort to change the rules of mail voting on the eve of the November midterms risks disenfranchising a substantial number of voters.

"The judge rejected the administration's arguments, finding that the suit was not filed too soon and that the states had legal standing because they would face election ⁠administration disruption, ​compliance costs and a credible threat of criminal prosecution. Trump's executive order is part of his wider ​efforts to make fundamental changes in U.S.