The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s emergency bid to enforce new U.S. Postal Service (USPS) restrictions on mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, leaving a lower court’s nationwide block in place.
In a brief order, the court said the government was “unlikely to succeed on the merits” for purposes of obtaining emergency relief and had not shown that the legal and practical considerations warranted a stay.
The rules would require federal ballot mail to be sent in envelopes bearing an election-mail logo, capable of being scanned by high-speed equipment and carrying a barcode unique to each voter.
State and local election officials would also be required to submit envelope designs to the Postal Service for review and upload basic voter information to an online USPS portal.
USPS PUBLISHES RULE TO BLOCK MAIL-IN BALLOTS FROM STATES THAT DON’T PROVIDE VOTER LISTS
Under the USPS rule, mailings that failed to comply would not be accepted and would instead be returned to election officials to correct and resubmit.
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FROM RESTRICTING MAIL-IN BALLOTS AHEAD OF MIDTERMS
A federal judge previously blocked the USPS from implementing the rules, including the online portal that could be used to track millions of mail ballots.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision but indicated the USPS may ultimately have the authority to impose the requirements.
TRUMP SCORES SUPREME COURT WIN ON MAIL-IN VOTING RESTRICTIONS BEFORE MIDTERMS
“In my view, based on the briefing the Court has received at this interim stage, there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority,” Kavanaugh wrote.
However, he said attempting to apply the rules during the 2026 elections would be “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have enough time to reasonably implement them.
JACKSON RIPS INTO SUPREME COURT COLLEAGUES’ ‘SERIOUS LEGAL ERROR’ ON TRUMP MAIL-IN VOTING ORDER
Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the decision, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Alito argued that some of the plaintiffs lacked legal standing and that the remaining challengers were pursuing what the court has previously called a “Hail Mary pass” that “rarely succeeds.”
ALABAMA AG MARSHALL FIRES BACK AT USPS MAIL-BALLOT ORDER CRITICS: ‘THIS IS ABOUT SECURING ELECTIONS’
“The Government has made the showings necessary for a stay, so I respectfully dissent,” Alito wrote.
Alito said the USPS has broad authority to regulate the collection, handling, transportation and delivery of mail. He also argued that the government would suffer irreparable harm because any reversal of the lower court’s injunction would come too late for the midterms.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office helped lead the legal challenge, celebrated the decision as a victory for voters.
“Today, the Supreme Court protected one of our most fundamental, inalienable rights – the right to make your voice heard at the ballot box,” James said. “This last-minute change could have thrown our elections into chaos, and I am truly relieved the Court granted this reprieve.”
“Voters should never have to wonder whether a ballot they legally cast will be counted because the federal government suddenly changed the rules,” she added. “We will keep fighting to make sure every eligible ballot is counted come November.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also praised the ruling, calling it “one of the most important cases to protect voting rights before the Supreme Court.”
“Trump’s plan to make it harder to vote was obviously unconstitutional,” Schumer said. “The Supreme Court had no choice but to make the right decision.”
“The President’s attempt to screw around with vote by mail was obscene,” he added. “Finally, his scheme is dead. Trump: you lost another one.”
FEDERAL JUDGE AGAIN BLOCKS TRUMP’S MAIL BALLOT ORDER JUST BEFORE MIDTERMS
President Donald Trump directed the USPS earlier this year to develop new standards for handling election mail. The agency finalized the requirements in late August.
The administration and the USPS then asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a federal judge converted a temporary restraining order into a nationwide preliminary injunction.
The decision leaves the preliminary injunction in place, preventing the USPS from enforcing the new requirements for the 2026 elections while the litigation continues.
