The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that President Donald Trump may begin carrying out parts of an executive order aimed at tightening rules for voting by mail. The court said further legal challenges could still delay or block the measures before the November midterm election.

In a 10-page decision issued without a signed opinion, the court framed its ruling as narrow. But it also kept alive the possibility that the administration will ultimately pursue the full set of policies set out in the order signed in March, which would give the US Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security expanded roles in election administration.

Limited Decision, Ongoing Court Battles

The court’s ruling means the Trump administration can move ahead with an element of the order that states had challenged in court. Those challenges will now continue on a faster or different timetable, depending on how lower courts respond to the next steps in the litigation.

The court left open that additional aspects of the executive order could still face obstacles, particularly after legal hurdles already identified in prior cases. It cautioned that if the Postal Service’s final rule harms states, they may seek further judicial review.

DHS Eligibility Lists And USPS Envelope Tracking

One part of the March order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile, state by state, lists of voters the department believes are eligible to vote in jurisdictions led by Democrats that brought the lawsuit. The Supreme Court said the administration could proceed with that proposal for the time being.

Another part of the executive order instructs the Postal Service to require states that want to send ballots through the mail to provide their own lists of eligible voters to the agency. The order also calls for ballot envelope markings that allow votes to be tracked.

The Supreme Court allowed the Postal Service to implement that aspect of the plan, even though a lower court had blocked it nationwide in a separate case. As a result, additional proceedings are likely, with the prospect of more urgent appeals aimed at reaching the Supreme Court quickly.

Election Cases Draw Sharp Dissent

Monday’s decision drew opposition from the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, argued that the dispute was about whether the executive branch could legally interfere with states’ management of the November 2026 elections, while the majority focused only on timing.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote separately and used stronger language to criticise what she described as the ruling’s effect on the midterm election process. In her dissent, she warned that the court’s approach injects “Kafkaesque nightmare” conditions into election litigation, describing what she said was inconsistency in how the court treats challenges arriving too early or too late.

This year’s election-related disputes at the Supreme Court have intensified, including a separate late-April ruling in which the court’s conservative majority gutted the Voting Rights Act in a decision on Louisiana’s congressional districts. Liberal justices dissented in that case as well.

March Order, State Challenges, And Next Steps

The March executive order requires states to submit eligible voter lists to the Postal Service, and says the Postal Service would not deliver ballots mailed to people not on those lists. It also directs states to include tracking barcodes on ballot envelopes.

The order further directs the federal government to prioritise prosecution of state election officials who send or receive ballots for non-citizens or others ineligible to vote, and it tells DHS to create separate eligibility lists of what it describes as US citizen voters in each state.

The administration has argued in court filings that a state’s failure to use those DHS lists would not, by itself, be a crime, while adding that it could be used as “relevant evidence” in related prosecutions.

Federal courts in Boston blocked the order’s implementation in 23 Democratic-led states that challenged it, but an appeals court in Washington, DC allowed the plan to proceed. The administration filed its emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on 27 July.

Alongside that case, a separate lawsuit brought by non-partisan voter advocacy groups is before the Boston court. Judge Indira Talwani, nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, issued a preliminary injunction there that blocks the Postal Service directives nationwide.

The Justice Department told the Supreme Court it should decide the Democratic-led states’ case in a way that would also resolve the separate advocacy groups’ lawsuit. The Supreme Court’s Monday order provided limited guidance on that request.

The government had also argued the challenge was not yet ripe because the Postal Service had not completed its final regulations and DHS was still deciding whether it could compile the relevant citizenship-based data. That argument weakened after the Postal Service issued a 95-page rule on Friday, describing how it would require tracking bar codes and participation in a postal eligibility portal using state-provided data.

In some states, deadlines for beginning to transmit mail ballots are weeks away.

Join the discussion?

25 August 2026

View full article

SCOTUS = Trump clone?

It's a sad day in America when the majority of the highest court in the land is bought and paid for, and acting like $75 street whores.

So, the DHS, run by a plumber, will now issue lists to the states of who is allowed to vote in the midterms......little or no oversight....state lists are now totally redundant......and............. the DoJ has been told to prosecute any election officials who allow someone, whose details aren't identical to the DHS list, to be prosecuted.

Once this happens every person and his dog who is denied a vote will sue......absolute chaos***.......only then will SCOTUS look at Trump's EO to see if it did indeed "cause harm".

---

***Is this the whole point of the EO though?

Edited August 25Aug 25 by MIke B Bad

The steal is in, BUT Trump himself just voted by mail , what a hypocrite ,

the next thing the Supreme Court will allow him ,(if he lasts) a 3rd term.

A huge Trump lie , USA is only country that does mail in voting in fact

there are 34 countries around the World that have kind of mail in voting.

regards worgeordie

The Court’s majority is ducking the real issue of executive intrusion into state elections by hiding behind timing.

The dissenters warn this creates a cycle that is nightmarishly complex, illogical, and oppressive, where challenges are always premature or too late.

Meanwhile, the March order federalises ballot delivery and voter eligibility through the Postal Service and DHS, setting a precedent for executive control over elections.

The result: confusion for states, leverage for the Trump administration, and erosion of judicial consistency in election law.

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

It's a sad day in America when the majority of the highest court in the land is bought and paid for, and acting like $75 street whores.

Sadly the majority of the court clearly love Trump

4 hours ago, webfact said:

states that want to send ballots through the mail

Don't some US states allow ballots to be faxed to respective county election offices as well as accepting courier delivery of ballots to election offices. Obviously these ballots cannot be intercepted by the USPS.

Most countries have mail in votes and measures in place to prevent fraud. How come it’s so hard for Americans? Or is this just to justify his false claims of winning his lost election!!

2 hours ago, JimHuaHin said:

SCOTUS = Trump clone?

Not, as there remains justices RESISTing trump.

1 minute ago, Brettoj said:

Most countries have mail in votes and measures in place to prevent fraud. How come it’s so hard for Americans? Or is this just to justify his false claims of winning his lost election!!

The latter. Our American elections have run just fine until trump.

1 hour ago, Jim Waldron said:

The Court’s majority is ducking the real issue of executive intrusion into state elections by hiding behind timing.

The dissenters warn this creates a cycle that is nightmarishly complex, illogical, and oppressive, where challenges are always premature or too late.

Meanwhile, the March order federalises ballot delivery and voter eligibility through the Postal Service and DHS, setting a precedent for executive control over elections.

The result: confusion for states, leverage for the Trump administration, and erosion of judicial consistency in election law.

ALL Americans abroad need to realize they can ask for their Mail-In Ballots to be delivered to them through the internet email and do not have to be affected by trump's interference in receiving our ballots.

1 hour ago, worgeordie said:

The steal is in, BUT Trump himself just voted by mail , what a hypocrite ,

the next thing the Supreme Court will allow him ,(if he lasts) a 3rd term.

A huge Trump lie , USA is only country that does mail in voting in fact

there are 34 countries around the World that have kind of mail in voting.

regards worgeordie

I am thinking trump will not do the 3rd term bit. He will die of a heart attack or stroke or an American will fall no the grenade for us.

Terrible decision by the Supreme Court conservative majority, which seems to have no problem with ruling against the Constitution, while always bleating that the Constitution must be strictly followed. There is absolutely no justification for the Executive Department--Trump--to get involved in managing elections and saying who can and cannot vote, and by what means they can or cannot use to vote. None.

The Constitution clearly gives the states the right to manage their elections, which has worked fine, through wars, epidemics, the Great Depression, and everything else, until Trump came along with his Big Lie, which is a far-reaching strategy to suppress voting as much as possible, and possibly eliminate elections with more Big Lie propaganda that the elections are no longer legitimate. Appalling, and scary, we have come to this state.

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

Don't some US states allow ballots to be faxed to respective county election offices as well as accepting courier delivery of ballots to election offices. Obviously these ballots cannot be intercepted by the USPS.

Mail in balloting is going ahead.....this wasn't blocked by SCOTUS......the issue now is only registered citizens on the DHS list are entitled to vote...in person, or by mail/fax

1 hour ago, MIke B Bad said:

Mail in balloting is going ahead.....this wasn't blocked by SCOTUS......the issue now is only registered citizens on the DHS list are entitled to vote...in person, or by mail/fax

This sounds disastrous. How are the democrats going to ever win if only actual citizens are able to vote. Boo hoo

You’re still gonna lose the midterm elections because you’re an imbecile….

It will be great to see him defeated after seeing all he is trying to do to win.

I do agree that only legal citizens should vote, but he just keeps on twisting things around just to secure a majority win. That’s how much you trust your citizens. Hope Humpty Dumpty realizes he has already had his fall.

30 minutes ago, jcmj said:

It will be great to see him defeated after seeing all he is trying to do to win.

I do agree that only legal citizens should vote, but he just keeps on twisting things around just to secure a majority win. That’s how much you trust your citizens. Hope Humpty Dumpty realizes he has already had his fall.

He can't win or lose, another 2 years and he's gone.

8 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

It's a sad day in America when the majority of the highest court in the land is bought and paid for, and acting like $75 street whores.

Maybe you should read why it was a 6-3 decision. They've overridden a District Court judge in favour of the Executive. All it really means is that the US Postal Service will be able to track via a barcode on the envelope if incoming ballots are coming from registered voters i.e. US citizens and by way of this track if ballots have been posted to and by non-citizens who do not have the right to vote. Odd that it's the blue states that don't want this to happen. I wonder why?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a124_hgci.pdf

4 hours ago, Dirk Z said:

Conman-in-chief making the next step. Does anyone realize how dangerous this really is?

Very dangerous indeed. How can anyone think that only citizens of a country have the right to vote in that country's elections.

5 hours ago, newnative said:

Terrible decision by the Supreme Court conservative majority, which seems to have no problem with ruling against the Constitution, while always bleating that the Constitution must be strictly followed. There is absolutely no justification for the Executive Department--Trump--to get involved in managing elections and saying who can and cannot vote, and by what means they can or cannot use to vote. None.

The Constitution clearly gives the states the right to manage their elections, which has worked fine, through wars, epidemics, the Great Depression, and everything else, until Trump came along with his Big Lie, which is a far-reaching strategy to suppress voting as much as possible, and possibly eliminate elections with more Big Lie propaganda that the elections are no longer legitimate. Appalling, and scary, we have come to this state.

This decision DOES NOT take away the states constitutional right to run their elections.

5 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

This sounds disastrous. How are the democrats going to ever win if only actual citizens are able to vote. Boo hoo

Not sure 160 will make that much difference.

10 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

It's a sad day in America when the majority of the highest court in the land is bought and paid for, and acting like $75 street whores.

this is where we get to see all the lefty anti American socialists ( communists) doing their wicked witch of the west interpretation... you know, the part where she gets doused with a bucket of water

Edited August 25Aug 25 by Luuk Chaai

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Maybe you should read why it was a 6-3 decision. They've overridden a District Court judge in favour of the Executive. All it really means is that the US Postal Service will be able to track via a barcode on the envelope if incoming ballots are coming from registered voters i.e. US citizens and by way of this track if ballots have been posted to and by non-citizens who do not have the right to vote. Odd that it's the blue states that don't want this to happen. I wonder why?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a124_hgci.pdf

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

All it really means is that the US Postal Service will be able to track via a barcode on the envelope if incoming ballots are coming from registered voters i.e. US citizens

......and with no oversight the registered voters are defined by plumber boy in the DHS.

19 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

......and with no oversight the registered voters are defined by plumber boy in the DHS.

The states need to supply voter rolls. What are you on about? Red states are doing it. Blue states don't want to. Why not?

8 hours ago, newnative said:

Terrible decision by the Supreme Court conservative majority, which seems to have no problem with ruling against the Constitution, while always bleating that the Constitution must be strictly followed. There is absolutely no justification for the Executive Department--Trump--to get involved in managing elections and saying who can and cannot vote, and by what means they can or cannot use to vote. None.

The Constitution clearly gives the states the right to manage their elections, which has worked fine, through wars, epidemics, the Great Depression, and everything else, until Trump came along with his Big Lie, which is a far-reaching strategy to suppress voting as much as possible, and possibly eliminate elections with more Big Lie propaganda that the elections are no longer legitimate. Appalling, and scary, we have come to this state.

Maybe this contorted nonsense is revenge for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, part of which was recently undermined by SCOTUS. These nasty so-called Republicans love to complain about Federal interference in state matters, and then do it themselves.

The President has no say in state run elections, on top of that we are only two months away from midterms where the GOP is going to get annihilated.

Blowhard, gasbag, pompous imbecile Trump is then going to be stuck in hearings for his last two years answering questions on enrichment while in office, along with other charges.

Edited August 25Aug 25 by Priorexpat
spelling error

15 hours ago, Jim Waldron said:

The Court’s majority is ducking the real issue of executive intrusion into state elections by hiding behind timing.

The dissenters warn this creates a cycle that is nightmarishly complex, illogical, and oppressive, where challenges are always premature or too late.

Meanwhile, the March order federalises ballot delivery and voter eligibility through the Postal Service and DHS, setting a precedent for executive control over elections.

The result: confusion for states, leverage for the Trump administration, and erosion of judicial consistency in election law.

States not potus or executive dept determines elections rules and implementation...per the constitution....

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.2 The Court has further recognized the states’ ability to establish sanctions for violating election laws3 as well as authority over recounts4 and primaries.5 

5 hours ago, pomchop said:

States not potus or executive dept determines elections rules and implementation...per the constitution....

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.2 The Court has further recognized the states’ ability to establish sanctions for violating election laws3 as well as authority over recounts4 and primaries.5 

And the SCOTUS stay of the Lower Court injunction by the Obama appointed leftist judge Indira Talwani doesn't change this. She ordered that the executive order would cause harm to states. SCOTUS's decision states that the injunction lacks standing and that no harm to states can be demonstrated. This is about the postal service which falls under the Office of the Executive being able to track votes.

Edited August 25Aug 25 by dinsdale