The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to lift a judicial block on new US Postal Service restrictions for mail-in ballots, leaving in place an injunction that allows states to continue their established voting procedures less than two months before the November midterm elections.
The court’s one-paragraph unsigned order said the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the preliminary injunction issued by Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani, and that the equitable factors for obtaining emergency relief do not favor a stay. The decision means the Postal Service is expected to continue delivering ballots as usual, a significant outcome because nearly one-third of the country votes by mail and some states have already begun sending ballots to voters.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, filed a concurring opinion. He wrote that there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority, but he concluded that 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 it before the elections.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. Alito wrote that some plaintiffs lacked legal standing, while the remainder were pursuing a claim the court had recently called a Hail Mary pass that rarely succeeds. He argued that the government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule and that implementing it would enhance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail to better detect election fraud. He also blamed the plaintiff states for creating the conditions of a ruling so close to an election, writing that they and the courts hearing their claims were responsible for much of the delay.
The rule and the legal challenge
The dispute stems from an executive order Trump signed in March directing the USPS to tighten rules around mail-in voting. Under the resulting rule, states were required to send the Postal Service lists of voters eligible to receive mail ballots and to use ballot envelopes with specific barcodes previously approved by the agency. The Postal Service could deny delivery of ballots that failed to comply with the new standards or were not associated with registered voters on the submitted lists.
Trump argued the rules would combat electoral fraud by non-citizens, a problem that many studies and audits show is extremely uncommon. The administration’s lawyers provided the courts with no evidence of mail-voting fraud in this legal fight. A total of 23 states and Washington, D.C., sued to stop the order, joined by voting rights groups, arguing that the Constitution provides no authority for the president to issue orders governing the administration of elections and that the move violated states’ constitutional rights to run elections.
Judge Talwani imposed an injunction on 4 September blocking Trump’s order, ruling that implementing the measures close to November’s elections could disenfranchise voters and that the requirements were likely illegal because the Postal Service has no authority to control mail-in voting. A US appeals court refused to put her order on hold. On Sunday, a second federal judge, Carl Nichols, also ruled against Trump’s order. The Supreme Court had temporarily allowed Trump to move ahead with the executive order on procedural grounds in late August, but did not rule on the legality of the plan at that time.
Election officials warn of disruption
Election officials across the political spectrum warned there was no way to carry out a complete overhaul in the weeks before the midterms. Several Republican state election officials, including from the mostly vote-by-mail state of Utah, signed on to a Supreme Court brief cautioning that any attempt to carry out the USPS plan now will almost certainly lead to mistakes, delays, and confusion for both voters and election officials. The postal workers’ union said clerks could not be trained in time for the election. A whistleblower report said the portal was not properly built and a single barcode error could result in an entire batch of ballots being tossed out, potentially leading to millions of mail ballots never being sent.
Voting by mail has already begun. Alabama, North Carolina, and Wisconsin started sending mail ballots to voters over the past week. Western states including Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, where elections are held primarily or fully by mail, are soon to follow. The midterm elections will decide which party controls Congress, with Republicans holding slim majorities in both the House and the Senate.
Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, said in a statement that the Supreme Court refused to allow the federal government to throw our elections into chaos just weeks before Election Day. The Postal Service exists to deliver Americans’ mail, she said, not to rewrite election rules, demand voters’ personal information, or decide which ballots make it through the system. New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose state was among the 23 mainly Democratic-led states that sued alongside Washington, D.C., said she was truly relieved by the ruling and that voters should never have to wonder whether a legally cast ballot will be counted because the federal government suddenly changed the rules.
Kristen Clarke, NAACP general counsel and former head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, called the administration’s effort alarming and described it as an 11th-hour attempt to hijack the way Americans vote by mail. She said civil rights organizations took to the court at the earliest opportunity and noted that the final rule was not issued until roughly 10 days ago. She said the court is leaving in place an injunction that prevents the administration from turning the electoral system on its head, and that what the administration was attempting would have unleashed chaos across the country.
The White House did not immediately comment on the decision. While the USPS plan remains paused for the midterms, the legal fight will likely continue over how the agency may try to implement it for future federal elections. This is not the first setback on postal ballots for Trump before the Supreme Court. In June, the justices ruled that states may count ballots postmarked by election day, rejecting the administration’s push to block votes tallied when received after polls close. Trump has long opposed mail voting and falsely blamed it for his 2020 election loss, even though he has voted by mail himself.