Supreme Court Blocks Trump Administration’s Mail-Voting Restrictions Ahead of Midterms
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s emergency effort to put new restrictions on mail-in voting into effect ahead of November’s midterm elections, leaving in place a lower-court injunction that prevents the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing the new requirements.
The decision means states can continue using their existing procedures for distributing mail ballots as voting for the 2026 midterms gets underway. The justices declined the administration’s request to lift the injunction, though the order does not amount to a final Supreme Court ruling on the underlying constitutional and legal questions surrounding the policy.
The dispute centers on a new Postal Service rule stemming from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March. Under the plan, states would have been required to provide information about voters receiving mail ballots through a new federal online portal and obtain approval for ballot-envelope designs. The Postal Service had said it would not deliver certain mail ballots from states that failed to comply with the requirements.
The administration argued that the measures were intended to safeguard elections and ensure that mail ballots were sent only to eligible voters. State election officials and voting-rights groups challenged the requirements, arguing that the President and Postal Service lacked the legal authority to impose them and warning that implementing an entirely new system shortly before the election could prevent legitimate ballots from being delivered or counted.
The Supreme Court’s action comes after U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Postal Service from enforcing the rules. A federal appeals court subsequently refused the administration’s request to lift that injunction.
The appeals court said the administration had not made a sufficiently strong showing that Talwani was wrong in concluding that the Postal Service rule was likely unlawful.
“Appellants have not made a strong showing that the district court erred in determining that the Final Rule is likely unlawful,” the appeals court wrote.
The court also pointed to warnings from election officials that attempting to introduce the requirements so close to Election Day could create significant disruptions, particularly because some states have already begun distributing mail ballots.
The administration then turned to the Supreme Court, asking the justices on an emergency basis to allow the Postal Service regulations to take effect while litigation over their legality continued. The high court declined that request Monday, keeping the restrictions blocked for now.
The ruling followed another setback for the administration over the weekend. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington, D.C., a Trump appointee, separately blocked implementation of the Postal Service rule in a different lawsuit.
Nichols concluded that the Postal Service had not been granted authority by Congress to perform key aspects of the proposed ballot-screening system, including creating a database through which states would provide information on voters eligible to receive mail ballots.
He also found that allowing the regulations to take effect posed a risk that legitimate mail ballots would not be counted.
“Plaintiffs have demonstrated that, absent an injunction, there is an increased risk that a significant number of otherwise appropriate absentee or mail-in ballots will ultimately not be counted in the upcoming elections,” Nichols wrote.
“The public has a strong interest in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”
The Supreme Court had previously intervened in an earlier phase of the dispute and lifted a block on Trump’s executive order, but that decision was procedural. At the time, the justices concluded that the states challenging the policy had gone to court prematurely because the Postal Service had not yet finalized its regulations. The Court did not decide whether the proposed mail-ballot restrictions themselves were lawful.
After the Postal Service formally issued its rule in August, challengers returned to court, resulting in the new injunctions now at issue.
Monday’s Supreme Court decision therefore does not necessarily end the broader legal fight over the administration’s authority to regulate the handling of mail ballots. For the immediate 2026 election, however, the ruling prevents the Trump administration from implementing the challenged Postal Service restrictions under the injunction currently before the Court.
The decision comes less than two months before the November midterms, which will determine control of Congress, and after mail voting has already begun in several states.
