The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an emergency bid by President Donald Trump to impose new restrictions on mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections. The brief, one-paragraph order leaves states free to continue administering mail-in voting under their existing procedures, averting last-minute disruptions that election officials warned could block the delivery of ballots.
The justices declined a Justice Department request to lift a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston. Talwani’s ruling had blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing measures stemming from an executive order signed by Trump in March, which mandated uniform envelope styles and required states to provide recipient lists to the postal agency.
“The government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction,” the Supreme Court stated in its brief order.
### State Election Rules and Institutional Stakes
The legal battle centers on administrative authority over federal elections. Under the new postal service rules, states would have been required to submit lists of mail ballot recipients and use agency-approved outgoing and return envelopes equipped with unique barcodes. The Postal Service could then refuse to transport ballots failing to meet those criteria or lacking a corresponding name on the provided state lists.
Lower courts intervened after voting rights groups and Democratic state officials filed challenges, arguing that the executive branch lacked the constitutional authority to reshape voting procedures on the eve of a national election. On Sunday, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington, D.C., also ruled against the new postal requirements.
In a concurring opinion with the majority, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that while the administration’s underlying policy might ultimately prove lawful, “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas publicly dissented from the decision. Writing for the minority, Alito compared the challengers’ arguments to a “Hail Mary pass” and asserted that “the Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.”
### Legal and Political Fallout
The Supreme Court’s decision carries major implications for the midterm elections, as nearly one-third of the country votes by mail. Various surveys indicate that mail-in voting is disproportionately utilized by Democratic voters, making the rules a focal point as Republicans fight to maintain their narrow hold of Congress.
Critics of the administration’s plan, including election administrators in states such as Alabama, North Carolina, and Wisconsin—which had already begun mailing ballots to voters—warned that the restrictions could cause chaos and prevent legitimate ballots from reaching voters. A whistleblower report had previously alleged that the postal system’s requirements could result in millions of mail ballots never getting sent as the portal was not properly built and could therefore experience glitches.
California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose state spearheaded one of the primary lawsuits against the restrictions, praised the high court’s refusal to stay the lower court’s block.
“Today is a good day for democracy, the rule of law and the American people looking to exercise their constitutional right to vote,” Newsom said, adding “Trump’s attacks on democracy these last 20 months have been nothing short of un-American.”
Sophia Lin Lakin, voting rights project director at the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented several challengers to the postal rule, echoed those sentiments regarding constitutional boundaries.
“This administration keeps testing the limits of its power, as if the rules governing our elections are merely suggestions to ignore when they don’t suit the president’s agenda,” Lakin said. “But the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to set the rules for federal elections — not the president, and not the Postal Service.”
Worth a look
