Legal experts raised serious questions about the Supreme Court's latest ruling, which gave President Donald Trump's administration a temporary win in its effort to restrict mail-in ballots.

On Monday, the court lifted a lower court's injunction that had blocked Trump's mail-in ballot executive order from being implemented. The order required the Postal Service to list voters who use mail-in ballots and instructed the Department of Homeland Security to create its own voter roll. The directive is part of Trump's long-running attacks on mail-in voting, which he has described as "fraud" despite having voted by mail in multiple recent Florida elections.

The ruling does not end the legal fight, and it leaves election officials and voting-rights advocates in a familiar position: waiting for the case to move beyond procedural questions and into the merits. With voting in November approaching, the practical impact remains uncertain even as the dispute continues to test the balance between federal directives and state-run election administration.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, and Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola University, discussed the ruling on CNN's "The Lead."

Becker said the order would be impossible to implement before the midterms, though he added that it could still affect the outcome of the election.

"There's no way to implement this," Becker said. "This would be a sweeping seizure of election power from the states. Under any circumstances. It would be hard to do this with two or four years of advance notice. It is impossible to do that with about 70 days of advance notice."

Levinson said the Supreme Court's ruling left many issues unresolved, while also raising questions that remain open.

"It's very typical in the sense that a lot of times the fighting over executive orders is initially all based on these procedural matters that we're talking about right now," she said. "Who has standing to sue? Can you bring the case? Do you have to wait for something to bring the case? And then later you get to the merits when it comes to the harms."

"It's very unlikely that any rules will change prior to voting in November, and so when it comes to is this an emergency circumstance for the states, I think the answer at this point is 'no' because they won't be asked to change anything or forced to change anything," Levinson said. "I suspect ... the question becomes what to do next? And this is litigation that will absolutely continue. This is not the end of the case. Not by a long shot."