The Supreme Court refused Monday to let the Trump administration impose new Postal Service requirements on mail voting before the November midterms, leaving existing state procedures in place while legal challenges continue.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
The Supreme Court on Monday kept existing mail-voting procedures intact for the 2026 midterm elections, rejecting the Trump administration’s request to immediately enforce new U.S. Postal Service requirements as states have already begun distributing ballots.
The court denied the administration’s application to lift a preliminary injunction blocking the rules, concluding that “the Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction” and that the factors governing emergency relief did not support allowing the regulations to take effect now.
The ruling means states can continue operating their established vote-by-mail systems rather than converting to a new federal process only weeks before the Nov. 3 election. Mail ballots have accounted for nearly one-third of votes cast nationally in recent elections, according to the Associated Press.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the majority in keeping the restrictions out of the 2026 election but left open the possibility that the Postal Service could ultimately prevail when the underlying legal dispute is fully decided.
Kavanaugh wrote that there is “at least a fair prospect” that the final regulation falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority. He nevertheless concluded that imposing it this year would be improper because state and local election officials do not have enough time to reasonably implement the changes before voting is completed.
The regulations stem from a March executive order by President Donald Trump seeking tighter federal controls over the handling of mail ballots.
Under the Postal Service rule, states would be required to supply lists identifying recipients of mail ballots and use federally approved outgoing and return envelopes containing unique barcodes. Ballots that did not satisfy the requirements, or that were associated with voters absent from the submitted lists, could be refused by the Postal Service.
Election officials argued that changing systems so close to November would be extraordinarily difficult. Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin had already begun sending mail ballots during the week before the Supreme Court acted, while other states were preparing to do the same.
The concern was particularly significant in states that conduct much or most of their voting through the mail and would have needed to alter established procedures after election preparations were already underway.
A whistleblower also raised technical concerns about the still-developing postal system, alleging that deficiencies in the online portal could result in large numbers of ballots never being mailed. According to the Associated Press, one barcode error could potentially cause an entire batch to be rejected under the proposed system. The Postal Service inspector general previously said it would review whistleblower allegations concerning the regulations.
The administration argued that the Postal Service has authority to establish requirements governing election mail and maintained that the changes could be implemented in time. It told the Supreme Court that the measures were intended to prevent the mail system from being used for voter fraud.
Opponents, including several states and voting-rights organizations, countered that the executive branch was intruding into election administration authority assigned by the Constitution to states and Congress and that the late changes could prevent eligible voters from receiving or returning ballots.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston blocked enforcement of the final Postal Service rule Sept. 4, finding that challengers were likely to prevail and concluding that states could not reasonably comply before the election. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to suspend her ruling.
A second federal judge, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington, also ruled against the restrictions Sunday. Nichols was nominated to the federal bench by Trump during his first administration.
The Supreme Court had previously handed the administration an earlier procedural victory on Aug. 24 when it lifted an injunction targeting Trump’s executive order before the Postal Service had finalized the regulations. That ruling did not resolve whether the subsequently issued Postal Service rule itself was lawful.
Alito took a different view Monday, arguing that the Postal Service possesses broad authority to regulate the mail and that challengers were unlikely to succeed on several of their claims. Joined by Thomas, he said the practical difficulty of implementing the rule before November did not justify denying the administration’s request.
Kavanaugh’s concurrence created a narrower distinction. He indicated that the administration may have a substantial legal argument over the Postal Service’s underlying authority but concluded that introducing the system after election preparations were already far advanced would violate administrative-law requirements because officials lacked sufficient time to comply.
The ruling therefore does not permanently resolve the federal government’s power to establish the disputed mail-ballot requirements.
Instead, it prevents the new system from being imposed during the 2026 midterms while litigation continues over whether the Postal Service may lawfully require states to provide voter lists, adopt standardized ballot-mail envelopes and use federal barcodes as conditions for transmitting election mail.
For election administrators, the immediate consequence is much clearer: with voting already underway in parts of the country, the systems used to distribute and return mail ballots will remain unchanged for November.
Original article
Comments