This week, the Supreme Court actually did the right thing. That statement shouldn't be as astonishing as it is, but these days it is a rather rare thing to behold. The justices ruled that Donald Trump's scheme to hand the U.S. Postal Service extraordinary powers to determine which mail-in ballots were acceptable and which were not was unconstitutional and therefore could not be implemented before this year's midterm elections (which are roughly a month and a half away).

This was a decision handed down on the emergency (or "shadow") docket, which means the high court did not hold a public hearing on the arguments of the case, and the decision they issued didn't have much in the way of explanation. It was also unsigned, meaning it isn't even clear how many of the justices voted for it or against it.

In fact, here is the only thing the justices officially said about the ruling:

The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is denied. The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court's preliminary injunction. And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay.

This terse statement is normal, for emergency docket cases. The justices seldom explain their reasoning. What it means is that the block that a lower judge put on the Post Office that prevents them from following Trump's orders will remain, and nothing will change for the midterm election. All the rules previously in place before Trump tried his gambit are still in place and will remain in place.

The high court left itself an easy out on this case, because they essentially delayed the legal process until the calendar ran out. There is a standard legal doctrine that election changes cannot take place too close to an actual election (a window usually set at 60 days before the election), because changing the rules at the last minute would obviously cause confusion, if not outright chaos. The high court could have ruled earlier, but it waited until we were in that window (which made their decision easier to arrive at).

In fact, Justice Kavanaugh wrote his own paragraph, which concurred with the decision to block Trump's new rule from taking effect, but he indicated that he might very well rule differently if we weren't so close to an election, stating:

[T]here 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 Procedures Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.

In other words, if the issue returns to the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh will likely support Trump.

There are also eight pages of dissent, written by Justice Alito and also signed by Justice Thomas, which consists of pretzel-logic legal language that in essence states: "The Post Office can do whatever the president tells them to do, because it is a Republican president." The fact that there were any dissenting voices at all is disappointing, but not entirely unexpected.

The case really should have been a 9-0 slam dunk. Here is the relevant clause of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1):

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Archaic spelling and capitalization aside, that's a pretty clear statement (the bit about senators is obsolete, since when it was written the state legislatures chose senators, not the voters). Elections are up to the states to conduct. Congress can pass national rules for such elections, but even then it is still up to the states to implement and administer the voting process.

You'll note what is not present in that clause: any mention of the president, the executive branch, or the Post Office. This is because none of them have any constitutional power over elections whatsoever. That much is crystal clear. Which is why this really should have been an open-and-shut 9-0 Supreme Court decision.

Congress could, at some point, attempt to pass rules for mail-in voting. They could even ban it altogether if they wanted. Or they could attempt to pass Trump's new rule. But it would be challenged in court if they did so, because making the Post Office the official arbiter of who gets a ballot in the mail and who doesn't would usurp the state and local elections officials who currently hold that power. Which might (and probably would) be seen as unconstitutional.

This was a monumentally stupid idea from the get-go. Especially when you consider that Donald Trump himself uses mail-in ballots to vote. There is not a shred of evidence that mail-in voting is rife with election fraud, even though Trump believes this to be the case. But a president's personal belief is not even germane to the argument.

The Constitution says what the Constitution says, period. And even though both chambers of Congress are currently controlled by Republicans, Trump can't get the bill he has been pushing (which would make other changes to elections law) passed. So he likely couldn't get his new Post Office rule passed either.

This is all exactly as the framers of the Constitution intended. Which at least six of the Supreme Court justices assumably agree with.

Of course, the fight isn't really over yet. Trump could take another crack at changing the Post Office's rules after the midterm election. And there are plenty of other rather scary ways he could attempt to rig both the midterms and the 2028 presidential election as well. But this November at least the mail-in ballot rules will remain the same as they have been, because for once the Supreme Court had the courage to do what was right.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant