Supreme Court Blocks Trump Administration Mail-In Ballot Regulations

The US Supreme Court has turned down an emergency request from the Trump administration that sought to allow the US Postal Service (USPS) to enforce new rules on mail-in ballots prior to the November midterm elections.

The ruling leaves intact an injunction issued by Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani, who temporarily halted the regulation after finding it was likely unlawful and threatened to disenfranchise voters so close to the election.

The emergency petition aimed to overturn lower court decisions that prevented the postal agency from enacting ballot standards established following an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March.

Under the proposed USPS measures, state and local election officials would have been required to send voter recipient lists to an agency portal and adopt specific approved ballot envelope designs, such as unique barcodes. The Postal Service would then hold the authority to verify compliance and deny delivery for ballots not matching registered voter records or layout requirements.

A coalition of 23 states and Washington DC led by California alongside voting advocacy groups like the League of Women Voters and postal worker unions, filed lawsuits to stop the measure. Opponents argued that the rule exceeded USPS authority, infringed upon states' constitutional rights to manage elections, and presented insurmountable operational hurdles just as states began mailing out ballots.

Responding to the Supreme Court's order, California Attorney General Rob Bonta released a statement supporting the decision:

"Today’s decision is a victory for our democracy and a powerful affirmation of the rule of law," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. "The stakes in this litigation could not have been higher."

Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, also criticized the proposed USPS restrictions, saying that they were "an extraordinary attempt to interfere with voting in all 50 states."

In court filings, federal attorneys argued the standards were constitutional and represented "modest design and information requirements for ballot-mail envelopes."

The administration contended that states "cannot choose to use the federal mails to carry out their elections but then insist that their election-related mail is somehow exempt from the Postal Service's rule-making authority, conferred by Congress".

Government lawyers further framed the emergency appeal as an effort to protect "important federal policy to protect the mails from being used to commit voter fraud".

The Supreme Court rejected the administration's application in an unsigned order, indicating the government was "unlikely to succeed on the merits".

The decision revealed a 7-2 split among the justices, with conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the majority to block the rule's immediate application while leaving open the possibility of supporting the policy's legality in future proceedings.

In a concurring opinion, Kavanaugh stated there was "at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority".

However, he added that "applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious".

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the decision. Writing for the dissenters, Alito asserted that the government had the stronger legal standing, describing the opponents' lawsuit as a "Hail Mary pass".

He emphasized federal power over postal operations, writing: "The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail," while noting that implementation challenges gave him pause, "but it is not enough to convince me."

The executive order followed unsuccessful attempts by President Trump to pass the SAVE America Act through Congress, which sought federal proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration and mandatory voter ID laws.

Trump has regularly criticized mail-in voting, which was used by approximately 30 percent of voters in the last general election, claiming without evidence that it promotes widespread fraud and allows non-citizens to vote.

The decision represents the latest defeat for the White House on postal voting policies. In June, the Supreme Court ruled against an administration attempt to stop states from counting postmarked ballots received after election day.

While Judge Talwani's order remains in effect as litigation continues, states may choose to voluntarily conform to the USPS envelope specifications, but the Postal Service is prohibited from refusing to deliver valid ballot mail.