The Supreme Court opened a path Monday for possible implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be put in place before the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision leaves room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump's order, and other similar cases have already been filed. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes. North Carolina is sending out ballots Sept. 4 overseas and to military voters, and other states will quickly follow suit in just a few weeks.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority didn't decide the legality of Trump's order, instead ruling that states who sued did not have the legal right to challenge it.

While the emergency order is not final, it does have the potential to create chaos around voting across the country, with Trump often questioning the integrity of elections and the nation's highest court again the possible arbiter of a political controversy.

“The Court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell,” the majority wrote in an unsigned order.

The three liberal-leaning justices publicly dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing that the rule “lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James foreshadowed more legal fights ahead, calling the decision a “painful setback” but vowing it would “not be the final word.”

The court's order opens a path for the administration to begin action to restrict mail voting, but it also could lead to further litigation that could freeze the federal government again.

“This is just the first inning of a very fast nine-inning game,” said Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame University.

Mail balloting has long been a favorite target for Trump, who has claimed that it breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and his own use of the voting method.

Trump's executive order, signed in March, calls on his administration to create lists of eligible voters and orders the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. New requirements released Friday would forbid the Postal Service from sending mail ballots from any state that does not comply with Trump's order.

A Postal Service spokesperson did not immediately respond messages seeking comment. The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Bitcoin and gold shot higher this week, with both getting a boost from some frantic action surrounding the bond market, and the cryptocurrency also benefiting from activity in Washington.

Bitcoin had dropped from a January high of around $95,000 to below $60,000 at the end of June. Investors shied away from speculative assets earlier in the year and crypto supporters were concerned about the lack of movement on proposed regulation of the industry. On Friday, bitcoin rose above $77,000.

Gold hit a high above $5,300 in January but dropped to around $4,000 in June as rising rates made interest-bearing investments more attractive. Gold rose to $4,661 on Friday.

The first jolt arrived Wednesday when the Treasury Department announced plans to significantly increase its buybacks of long-term Treasurys, or government debt. On the same day, President Donald Trump, who made about $1.2 billion last year from various crypto holdings, urged Congress to move quickly on crypto legislation.

There was an almost immediate reaction, which included a dollar sell-off and a jump in the value of gold and bitcoin as investors moved toward alternative assets.

How these two investments caught fire can be understood in the context of several developments this week. In a surprise announcement Wednesday, the U.S. Treasury Department said that it would at least double the size of its planned purchases of longer-term government debt. The maneuver was intended to calm bond markets after a sustained sell-off, meaning investors were asking for higher yields to lend money to the U.S., which investors suddenly viewed as riskier.

That's because while the Treasury intervention worked, at least for a short period, it also raised questions about whether the government is trying to push borrowing costs lower despite inflationary pressures. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is attempting to lower long-term borrowing costs, a move that can put upward pressure on inflation at a time when inflation is already elevated. Bessent's maneuver could handcuff the Federal Reserve, which fights inflation by raising interest rates.

Then there's the national debt, which surpassed a record $40 trillion on the same day that the Treasury's actions unfolded. The milestone figure was recorded just five months after the U.S. hit a record $39 trillion debt in March. It reached $38 trillion five months before that, in October.

There is already a lot of anxiety over inflation, particularly because of the conflict in Iran and soaring energy prices. If yields on U.S. bonds are not truly reflecting risk, you can often see that play out in the value of the U.S. currency, which took a significant downward swoop Wednesday. So where does the money that was invested in the dollar or Treasurys go? This week, it appears to have been funneled into what is known as the “debasement trade,” when investors flood into alternative assets such as gold, which rose more than 2% Wednesday. The debasement trade now includes bitcoin. Bitcoin jumped more than 20% this week.

A federal judge said the government overreached by issuing a declaration that called treatments like puberty blockers and surgeries unsafe and ineffective for young people experiencing gender dysphoria, according to a ruling Thursday in Oregon.

Judge Mustafa Kasubhai's ruling was centered on Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. not going through the proper administrative procedures when issuing the declaration in December.

The declaration also warned doctors that they could be excluded from federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid if they provide these treatments.

The judge also denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case.

The judge's ruling was at the end of a roughly 6-hour hearing and will be followed by a written decision.

"Today's win breaks through the noise and gives some needed clarity to patients, families, and providers," the Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the lawsuit, said in a statement Thursday. "Health care services for transgender young people remain legal, and the federal government cannot intimidate or punish the providers who offer them."

A spokesperson for HHS did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment. The New York Times reported that the judge spoke about the broader implications associated with this case, especially as it relates to democracy.

"The notion that 'I will go forward and issue a declaration and see if we can get away with it' is not a principle of governance that adheres to the overarching commitment to a democratic republic that requires the rule of law to be regarded and respected and honored as a sacred," the judge said.

The decision is the second major legal setback for Kennedy and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services this week. Another federal judge in Boston on Monday temporarily blocked several of Kennedy's vaccine policy changes. The judge ruled Kennedy likely violated federal procedures in revamping a key vaccine advisory committee and slimming down the childhood vaccine schedule without the committee's input. Federal officials have indicated they plan to appeal that ruling.

A coalition of 19 states and the District of Columbia in December sued HHS, Kennedy and its inspector general over the declaration, alleging that it is inaccurate and unlawful and asking the court to block its enforcement.

The lawsuit says that HHS's declaration seeks to coerce providers to stop providing gender-affirming care and circumvent legal requirements for policy changes. It also says federal law requires the public to be given notice and an opportunity to comment before substantively changing health policy — neither of which, the suit says, was done before the declaration was issued.

HHS's declaration based its conclusions on a peer-reviewed report that the department conducted earlier this year that urged greater reliance on behavioral therapy rather than broad gender-affirming care for youths with gender dysphoria.

The report questioned standards for the treatment of transgender youth issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and raised concerns that adolescents may be too young to give consent to life-changing treatments that could result in future infertility.

Major medical groups and those who treat transgender young people have sharply criticized the report as inaccurate, and most major U.S. medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, continue to oppose restrictions on transgender care and services for young people.

The Justice Department is taking direct aim at the financial lifelines of Mexico’s most violent drug cartels, targeting money brokers who prosecutors say have adapted to intensified enforcement by increasingly routing drug profits through cryptocurrency from American cities to cartel leaders in Mexico.

The cases of four defendants recently sent from Mexico to the U.S. for prosecution provide a glimpse into shadowy money laundering networks that allow the Jalisco New Generation Cartel and other violent groups to continue pumping dangerous drugs into American communities. The prosecutions underscore the Justice Department’s efforts to turn up the pressure on cartels and stay ahead of their sophisticated and ever-evolving tactics to launder money across the border without detection.

By targeting alleged money brokers — rather than street-level traffickers — prosecutors say they are aiming at a choke point they believe is essential to the cartels sustaining their operations as law enforcement pressure mounts on more visible drug routes.

Since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second administration, the Mexican government has turned over more than 90 high-level defendants with ties to cartels in three transfers now at the center of a legal debate in Mexico. The defendants were wanted by U.S. prosecutors for crimes including drug trafficking, human smuggling and money laundering.

Senior Justice Department officials say bringing cartel figures to the United States is designed to do more than be a deterrent message. It could also lead to indictments against other high-level leaders if defendants cooperate, allowing prosecutors to reach higher into cartel leadership. Under Trump’s Republican administration, the Justice Department has restructured the Criminal Division to integrate narcotics prosecutors with anti-money laundering experts to better target cartels and to reflect a broader shift toward targeting the financial systems that sustain their operations.

The latest transfers to the U.S. include alleged Mexico-based money brokers, who authorities say oversee the movement of drug proceeds and pocket a percentage of the money that returns to the cartels as a commission, according to court papers. The brokers arrange for cash to be picked up in cities across the U.S. and conceal the money to get it across the border, often through digital assets as law enforcement has cut off other methods.

Prosecutors “want to hear on the distribution side how it works, who is involved, and seek additional indictments, and on the money laundering side, exactly the methods that they are using to get the money out of the United States through the U.S. banks,” Duva said. “There’s bulk cash smuggling that has been going on since the beginning of time, and then also sort of the newer trend of taking the cash, buying cryptocurrency, and then trading that cryptocurrency.”

Eduardo Rigoberto Velasco Calderon, Eliomar Segura Torres, Manuel Ignacio Correa and Cesar Linares-Orozco face money laundering conspiracy charges in indictments filed in Kentucky’s federal court. An attorney for Linares-Orozco declined to comment in an email to the AP, and no attorneys were listed in court papers for the other defendants.

The January transfer of 37 defendants from Mexico to the U.S. marked the third of its kind under Trump’s second term. Observers have described the transfers as an offering by Mexican authorities to offset mounting threats by Trump to take military action against cartels.

A group of lawyers and family members of cartel figures have accused Mexico of breaking the law by sending them without an extradition order. Mexico’s government has maintained the transfers were legal, carried out in the name of national security.

A top European Union official on Monday warned the United States against interfering in Europe’s affairs and said only European citizens can decide which parties should govern them.

European Council President Antonio Costa’s remarks came in reaction to the Trump administration’s new national security strategy, which was published on Friday and paints European allies as weak while offering tacit support to far-right political parties.

It’s “good” that the strategy depicts European countries as an ally, but “allies don’t threaten to interfere in the domestic political choices of their allies,” Costa said.

“What we can’t accept is the threat of interference in European political life. The United States cannot replace European citizens in choosing what the good or the bad parties are,” he said in Paris at the Jacques Delors Institute, a think tank.

Fabian Zuleeg, chief executive at the European Policy Centre think tank, said that stridently nationalist parties in Europe will be emboldened by the strategy document and “will intensify efforts to hollow out the EU from within.”

“Pro-European liberal forces need to finally wake up: Trump’s America is not an ally but an adversary to Europe’s freedoms and fundamental values. His objective is to replace our democratic system with the illiberal populism now entrenched in the U.S.,” Zuleeg said.

The strategy was also critical of European free speech and migration policy. U.S. allies in Europe face the “prospect of civilizational erasure,” the document said, raising doubts about their long-term reliability as American partners.

But Costa, who chairs summits of the 27 national EU leaders, said Europe’s “history has taught us that you can’t have freedom of speech without freedom of information.”

The former Portuguese prime minister also warned “there will never be free speech if the freedom of information of citizens is sacrificed for the aims of the tech oligarchs in the United States.”

Speaking to reporters in Berlin, German government spokesperson Sebastian Hille underlined that “Europe and the U.S. are historically, economically and culturally linked, and remain close partners.”

“But we reject the partly critical tones against the EU,” he said. “Political freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression, belong to the fundamental values of the European Union. We view accusations regarding this more as ideology than strategy.”

The security strategy is the administration’s first since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. It breaks starkly from the course set by President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, which sought to reinvigorate U.S. alliances.

It comes as the U.S. seeks an end to Russia’s nearly 4-year-old war in Ukraine, a goal that the national security strategy says is in America’s vital interests.

But the text makes clear that the U.S. wants to improve its relationship with Russia after years of Moscow being treated as a global pariah and ending the war is a core U.S. interest to “reestablish strategic stability with Russia.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said the document “absolutely corresponds to our vision.” Over the course of the war, Russia has worked to drive a wedge between NATO allies, particularly between the U.S. and Ukraine’s main backers in Europe.

“If we read closely the part about Ukraine, we can understand why Moscow shares this vision,” Costa said. “The objective in this strategy is not a fair and durable peace. It’s only (about) the end of hostilities, and the stability of relations with Russia.”

“Everyone wants stable relations with Russia,” he added, but “we can’t have stable relations with Russia when Russia remains a threat to our security.”

Top EU officials and intelligence officers have warned Russia could be in a position to launch an attack elsewhere in Europe in three to five years should it defeat Ukraine.

Former Del. Jay Jones will look to be the face of legal resistance to President Donald Trump in Virginia after winning Tuesday’s closely watched Democratic state primary for attorney general.

Jones will face Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares in the November general election. His victory was a critical step for Democrats in rounding out their ticket ahead of a bellwether election later this year.

Democrats are also nominating their pick for lieutenant governor from a field of six candidates. State Sen. Ghazala Hashmi led Former Richmond City Mayor Levar Stoney in the tightly locked race Tuesday night, and she declared victory, but The Associated Press deemed the race too early to call.

The November election is sure to make history as Virginia is set to elect its first female governor since the state’s first governorship 250 years ago. Democrat Abigail Spanberger, who ran for the Democratic nomination unopposed, will battle Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears — the only Republican who qualified for the ballot.

Virginia is one of two states that host statewide elections the year after a presidential election — New Jersey is the other — and the races are typically seen as referendums on the party in power before Congress heads into midterm elections.

Analysts will be looking for clues in both states about voter sentiment with Trump back in the Oval Office and Republicans controlling power in Washington.

Democrats’ hold on Virginia has slipped in recent years, moving it close to swing-state status nationally. Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin beat former Gov. Terry McAuliffe in 2021.

Still, Democrats have history on their side: The party of the sitting president typically suffers defeat in Virginia’s statewide races. And considering Trump has never won the state, Democrats are probably better positioned to make gains once their ticket solidifies.

Jones won the Democratic nomination in the race for attorney general despite his opponent casting him as lacking criminal prosecutorial experience.

Jones, who represented Norfolk in the House of Delegates for four years, comes from a long line of Hampton Roads politicians. His father was also a delegate, and his grandfather was the first Black member of the Norfolk School Board. Jones previously ran for attorney general in 2021 but lost the primary to Democratic incumbent Mark Herring.

He defeated Democrat Shannon Taylor, who has served more than a decade as the top prosecutor in the suburbs outside Richmond after flipping the open seat in 2011.

On the campaign trail, Jones touted himself as a candidate with the experience best suited for the job: He had worked as an assistant attorney general in Washington, where he said he had litigated consumer protection cases.

If elected attorney general, he also vowed to push back against Trump in court.

“I am ready for this fight and to win this November,” Jones said in a victory statement.

The six Democrats vying to be Virginia’s next lieutenant governor aren’t all that different on the issues: They support rights to abortion, a living wage, affordable housing and accessible health care. They also share similar criticisms of Trump.

The candidates notably fracture along regional lines.

Stoney has touted his ties to the Democratic Party and experience working under former Govs. Mark Warner and Terry McAuliffe.

Hashmi is also from the Richmond area, representing part of the city and suburbs. She has pushed reproductive health in her bid and has been endorsed by abortion rights political action committees.

Virginia Sen. Aaron Rouse, from Virginia Beach with ties to southwest Virginia, has also highlighted his legislative accomplishments.

Prince William County School Board Chair Barbur Lateef, former federal prosecutor Victor Salgado and retired U.S. Department of Labor worker Alex Bastani are from northern Virginia.

Only one Republican candidate in each statewide contest is advancing to the ballot.

Earle-Sears became the gubernatorial nominee after Republicans Dave LaRock and Amanda Chase failed to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Both LaRock and Chase initially challenged Earle-Sears for not being fully aligned with Trump.

Conservative talk-radio host John Reid became the de facto nominee for lieutenant governor after his primary opponent left the race, and despite intraparty quarreling over whether he was tied to a social media account reposting pornography.

Miyares sailed to his spot on the ballot as the nominee for attorney general after announcing his reelection bid. On Tuesday night, he said of Jones’ victory: “My opponent’s ideological record makes Virginia families less safe and our streets more violent.”

All 100 seats of the House of Delegates are up for election in November.

In Virginia’s more competitive districts, Democrat May Nivar won her primary race and will be taking on Republican incumbent Del. David Owen in a Richmond-area district that House liberals are vying to flip. Democrat Lindsey Dougherty won her primary race and will battle Republican Del. Carrie Coyner in a Petersburg-area district.