From Washington, D.C. to Anchorage, Alaska, federal courts have been busy with cases related to the Trump administration’s attempts to assert control over state elections. In almost every case, rulings have gone against the administration. But despite the fears of many Democrats, there was no mayhem launched by the Trump administration on Election Day.

One federal judge chastised administration officials for being “engaged in a campaign to intimidate, threaten and coerce state and local officials and employees who are engaged in administering the ongoing midterm 2026 election.” Another wrote with umbrage that “If the Executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger.” And the nation’s highest court, the Supreme Court, in what The New York Times called “an extraordinary rebuke,” refused to intervene in the administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling that barred federal intervention in California ballot counting.

The Conversation’s politics and legal affairs editor, Naomi Schalit, spoke on Election Day with Dickinson College President John Jones, a former federal judge, about the Trump administration’s actions – and how judges see them.

What are you seeing with all these cases?

The common stripe in every one of the cases that have been decided close to the election is that courts are reluctant to get involved after voting has started. And I think the courts’ perspectives are clearly affected by the high number of early votes cast either in person before Election Day or using mail-in voting. Without question, we’ve already been in the midst of this election – from a voting standpoint – for some time, and courts simply don’t want to get in the way of that and disrupt the........

© The Conversation