Supreme Court Won't Restore Trump's Mail-In Plan

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to lift a judge’s block on President Donald Trump’s mail-in voting plan for the midterm elections, rejecting the administration’s bid to clear the way for the policy to be implemented.

In a decision issued over the objections of two conservative justices, the court kept in place a preliminary injunction that found the plan unlawful. The ruling came on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, in the third attempt by the Trump administration to pursue the policy at the high court after earlier challenges by groups seeking to halt it.

Supreme Court Keeps Injunction in Place

The case marked a shift from earlier stages of litigation involving the president’s executive order itself. In previous emergency rulings, the court had ruled for Trump, saying blue states challenging the directive likely did not have standing to sue over the order.

This latest phase instead focused on how the U.S. Postal Service would carry out the president’s instruction as Election Day approached.

The court said the government was not likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the lower court’s injunction, in an unsigned ruling: “The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, said he voted with the majority. He wrote that while Trump’s plan had a “fair prospect” of being lawful, applying it in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials would lack sufficient time to implement it.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying the court had heard a dispute that included claims that should not proceed and describing part of the case as an unlikely attempt to obtain emergency relief.

Postal Service delivery Rules Blocked

Under the plan, states would be required to upload lists of voters who would receive ballots by mail. The Postal Service would also deliver ballots only if they met new design conditions, including an official logo and a barcode.

The administration had argued that the policy was modest and within federal authority, including the Postal Service’s role in handling sensitive mail. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in court filings that federal authorities would not second-guess states’ voter-list submissions, and that the judge’s block was baseless.

Sauer also told the court that maintaining the injunction would mean ballots continued to be sent through the mail without the planned safeguards. “Every day that the district court’s injunction remains in place, more ballots are being sent through the U.S. Mail without the benefits that the Rule provides for election integrity,” he wrote.

Broader Election Docket Pressures

The litigation has pulled the Supreme Court into election-related emergency disputes in recent weeks. Last week, the justices lifted an order allowing Missouri to use Republicans’ newly passed congressional map. The court is also still considering another case involving an overhauled immigration clearinghouse used to scrutinise voter rolls.

Monday’s decision was described as a rare loss for Trump on the emergency docket, although the court has not always been unanimous in stepping in after lower courts block parts of the president’s agenda.

The mail-in voting lawsuits began after Trump signed a new executive order in March targeting the practice, which he has said contributes to significant fraud. Election officials have identified limited fraud, but no evidence has emerged of the broad scale Trump has alleged. The lawsuits argue the plan exceeded the president’s authority.

Blue state officials had warned the policy would be difficult to comply with before the November contests, potentially leaving “millions” unable to vote by mail, according to their submissions.

Prior Court Actions and New Blocks

A central factor in the Supreme Court’s latest intervention was the order issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, appointed by former President Barack Obama and based in Boston. In an earlier round, the Supreme Court said states suing likely could not challenge the executive order itself.

In August, the Postal Service announced its final plan to implement the directive for the midterms. After Talwani halted it, the judge replaced that block with a longer order. The administration then returned to the Supreme Court for a third time.

As the high court kept Talwani’s injunction in place, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee in Washington, also blocked the policy nationwide on Sunday in response to separate challenges, according to the reporting. That ruling had not yet reached the justices.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, said the decision supported “the rule of law”. A lawyer for the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, Celia Canavan, said in a statement that access to mail ballots and vote-by-mail processes was important for participation and voter confidence.

Join the discussion?

15 September 2026

View full article