The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump's attempt to impose new restrictions on mail-in voting for November's midterm elections, keeping in place a federal judge's order that blocked the administration from requiring the US Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters on government-compiled citizenship lists. The decision marks the third time the Trump administration has been rebuffed by the high court on its emergency docket, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated he might later rule in the president's favour as litigation continues.
The Supreme Court's order, issued without full briefing or oral argument, upheld a district court injunction that prevented the USPS from enforcing Trump's March executive order. That directive instructed the Postal Service to withhold ballots from anyone the administration deemed ineligible, with the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration tasked with identifying noncitizen voters.
Justice Kavanaugh, a conservative appointed by Trump, wrote a concurring opinion explaining his vote. He acknowledged 'at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority' but concluded that 'applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious.' His reasoning suggests the administration could potentially revive the policy for future elections if it follows proper procedures.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, calling the challenge to Trump's order a 'Hail Mary pass' and arguing that 'the Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.' The two conservatives would have allowed the restrictions to take effect.
The legal battle began shortly after Trump signed the executive order in March, which legal experts quickly labelled unconstitutional because it effectively allowed the federal government to set voter eligibility rules — a power traditionally reserved for states. A federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the policy in early September, and the Boston-based First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift that injunction on September 10.
With about 30% of voters — predominantly Democrats — casting mail-in ballots in the 2024 general election, the ruling removes a significant source of uncertainty for millions of Americans who rely on postal voting. However, the White House did not immediately comment on the decision, and the administration retains the option to pursue the policy through normal rulemaking or legislative channels.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The ruling preserves the status quo for about a third of American voters who use mail-in ballots, preventing last-minute disruptions to the midterm election process.
- The decision reinforces the principle that states — not the federal government — have primary authority to set election rules, a key constitutional question.
- The narrow, procedural basis of Kavanaugh's concurrence leaves the door open for future restrictions on mail-in voting, meaning the debate is far from settled.
Background
Mail-in voting has become a fiercely partisan issue since the 2020 election, when Donald Trump repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud. In March 2026, he signed an executive order directing the USPS to verify voter citizenship before delivering ballots, arguing it was necessary to prevent noncitizen voting. Voting-rights groups and Democratic-led states sued, arguing the order was unconstitutional and would disenfranchise eligible voters. A federal judge in Massachusetts issued a nationwide injunction, which the administration has been fighting through the courts.
Key Perspectives
- Trump administration: Argues the executive order is a legitimate use of executive authority to combat voter fraud and that the Postal Service has broad statutory power to regulate mail delivery.
- Voting-rights groups and Democratic states: Contend the order is an unconstitutional federal overreach that violates states' rights to run elections and threatens to suppress legitimate votes.
- Justice Kavanaugh and the majority: While skeptical of the administration's timing, they did not rule on the legality of the underlying policy, leaving it possible for the rule to be implemented in future elections with proper notice and procedural steps.
- Dissenting justices (Alito and Thomas): Believe the Postal Service's authority is broad enough to support the rule and that the lower courts should not have blocked it.
What to Watch
- Whether the Trump administration pursues the mail-in voting restrictions through formal rulemaking rather than executive order.
- How states adjust their mail-in ballot procedures in response to the ongoing legal uncertainty.
- Any further emergency appeals or legislative attempts to restrict postal voting before future elections.