The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday blocked a Trump administration rule aimed at restricting mail-in ballots, dealing a setback to the president’s effort to impose federal control over election procedures ahead of the November midterms. The court rejected an emergency application from the Justice Department to uphold the regulation, which would have required states to submit voter lists to the U.S. Postal Service and use agency-approved ballot envelopes. The decision allows states to continue using existing mail-in voting processes, which account for nearly a third of all votes cast.
Supreme Court Blocks Trump’s Mail-In Ballot Restrictions Ahead of Midterms
The regulation, issued by the Postal Service at the direction of Trump’s executive order in March, faced immediate legal challenges from states and voting rights groups. Lower courts, including a Boston-based district judge, had blocked the rule, citing concerns over its potential to disrupt voting and disenfranchise voters. The Supreme Court’s brief order affirmed that decision, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh noting in a concurring opinion that while the Postal Service likely has authority to issue the rule, its implementation was issued so close to the election
that it could not proceed.
Trump’s Claims of Fraud Unfounded, Critics Warn of Voter Disenfranchisement
Trump has repeatedly claimed that mail-in ballots are prone to fraud, despite widespread evidence to the contrary. The administration argued the rule would prevent “voter fraud,” but critics called it an attempt to suppress voting. Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, described the regulation as an extraordinary attempt to interfere with voting in all 50 states.
Similarly, the NAACP’s general counsel, Kristen Clarke, praised the court’s decision, calling it “a big victory” for voters and democracy.
The rule would have required states to provide lists of mail ballot recipients to the Postal Service, which could then refuse to deliver envelopes that did not meet new standards or were associated with voters not on the lists. Election officials and legal experts warned the changes would create chaos as states rushed to comply weeks before the midterms. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Clarence Thomas, dissented, arguing the federal government had broad authority to regulate the mail
and that courts had “taken too long” to resolve the case.
Context: Trump’s Broader Push for Federal Election Control
The case is part of Trump’s broader effort to expand federal involvement in voting ahead of the midterms. His administration had previously sought to pass the SAVE America Act, which would have imposed nationwide voting restrictions, including proof of citizenship for registration. When Congress rejected the bill, Trump turned to executive authority, directing the Postal Service to issue the mail-in ballot rule. The Supreme Court’s decision effectively halts that strategy, preserving the status quo for the 2026 elections.
Trump’s executive order followed years of baseless claims about election fraud, including after his 2020 loss to Joe Biden. The Postal Service’s regulation, which the administration downplayed as modest design and information requirements,
faced scrutiny for its potential to delay ballot delivery. The court’s rejection ensures that states will not face additional hurdles in sending out mail ballots, which have become a critical component of the voting process.