Carl J. Nichols

It's also obstruction of justice.

And that's what Mr. Tickton's putting the court, Judge Nichols and Magistrate Judge Upadhyay on notice of.

Okay, so let's...

If we can, let's go through this a little bit.

Sorry, I'm trying to read the small font here.

This is the vote.

This is the email from Dominion's attorneys to the judge in, I believe, in Chambers, right? Nichols Chambers?

Sorry.

The nation's highest court already is considering the administration's appeal of an order by U.S. District Court Judge Indira Tawani in Boston prohibiting the Postal Service from enforcing its new rule on mail voting before this year's midterm elections.

Late Sunday, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington, D.C. handed down a similar hold on the rule, which was issued on the 21st of August.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated that absent an injunction, there is an increased risk that a significant number of otherwise appropriate absentee or mail-in ballots will ultimately not be counted in the upcoming elections.

Nichols wrote in issuing from primarily injunction, the public has a strong interest in ensuring that doesn't happen.

And if these new requirements, which were announced just a few months before the midterms, were not met, the Postal Service said that they would not accept or mail out ballots.

But on Sunday, Trump appointee Judge Carl Nichols found USPS lacked the authority to require states to submit a list of eligible voters to this online portal and only transport ballots to voters verified via this portal.

Nichols wrote that if the rule was implemented, there would be a, quote, "increased risk that a significant number of otherwise appropriate absentee or mail-in ballots will ultimately not be counted in the upcoming elections." And this was kind of a double whammy for the Trump administration, because then the next day, on Monday- The Supreme Court issued a shadow docket ruling, which is, usually means bad news, but in this case, they denied the Trump administration's request to lift the first injunction blocking the implementation of the Postal Service's final rule, finding that the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge.

And this appears to be a 7-2 ruling, with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting.

Though, Justice Kavanaugh wrote a one-paragraph concurring opinion which states, quote, "There is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority, but applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the election," unquote.

So that kind of goes against what Trump appointee Judge Carl Nichols, uh, found in his, you know, other separate injunction.

But this rule will not be implemented at least for the upcoming midterm elections.

Okay.

I don't think this is the final word.

I think it pr- probably, and rightfully, is the final word before this election, 'cause I think that every court to consider this, including, by the way, a federal district court in Washington, DC earlier this week, Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed by President Trump in the first Trump administration, has blocked this rule.

So it's not, it's not just one particular court, it's courts across the board are blocking this rule.

Right.