The Supreme Court stopped President Donald Trump’s new mail-in ballot rules from taking effect this Monday. The high court upheld a federal judge’s order that blocked the changes. According to the Daily Signal, the court ruled that the government is unlikely to win its challenge to the lower court’s decision. The justices said the factors needed for emergency relief do not support a pause on the ban.
Justice Samuel Alito disagreed with the majority and wrote a dissenting opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with Alito. This ruling keeps the rules off the books for the November 3 midterm elections. The decision means the U.S. Postal Service cannot enforce the new requirements right now.
Trump signed an executive order in March to ensure citizenship verification in federal elections. That order told the Department of Homeland Security to make lists of citizens for each state. It also directed the U.S. attorney general to prosecute officials who give ballots to people who cannot vote. The order further told the Postal Service to check voter lists before delivering mail ballots.
Twenty-three state attorneys general and the District of Columbia sued to stop these rules. California Attorney General Rob Bonta led the group of plaintiffs. They argued the executive order goes against the Constitution. The Constitution gives states the power to decide who can vote and how elections are run.
Nonprofit groups, including the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, also filed a lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts issued an injunction to block the rules. She said the rules likely went beyond federal power. She also warned that the rules could stop people from voting because states had already started mailing ballots.
The government tried to get the Supreme Court to block Judge Talwani’s order last month. The court said the lawsuit was premature because the Postal Service had not finished its rules yet. Now that the rules are out, the court allowed future challenges to move forward. The Postal Service published its final rules on August 21.
A different judge, Carl Nichols, blocked a similar rule in the District of Columbia last Sunday night. He was appointed by President Trump. His 24-page opinion says the Postal Service likely went too far with its authority. He wrote that the agency has no role in running elections.
The judge noted that the rule requires voters to be verified by the Postal Service through a new portal. He stated that no law gives the Postal Service the power to issue these key parts of the rule. According to the Daily Signal, the judge found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their claim that the rule was issued without legal power.
Judge Nichols also said the government did not show the rule would stop fraud. He wrote that the federal government pointed to no evidence of significant fraud in upcoming elections. He noted that the government’s position is that the rule is just a modest change. One quote from the ruling states: “That’s perhaps not surprising, since the government’s position is that the final rule is just a ‘regulation of the U.S. mail, and a modest one at that.'” Another part of the ruling says: “the Postal Service’s final rule imposes only modest envelope-design and addressee-information requirements for federal-election ballots sent via U.S. mail.”
This legal battle is not over. The case is expected to return to the Supreme Court before the 2026 midterm elections. The plaintiffs in Judge Nichols’ case included the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the NAACP. The Postal Service rule requires states to enroll voters in a federal portal to check their eligibility.
The rule demands that all mail-in ballots for federal elections use envelopes with new designs. These envelopes must go only to voters the Postal Service says are eligible. The judge found that the Postal Reorganization Act does not allow the agency to make new election rules. It does not let them create data systems or refuse mail that does not meet these new data needs.
The fight over election rules continues to move through the courts. The Supreme Court’s latest move keeps the status quo in place for now. Families waiting for their ballots can expect them to arrive under the old rules. The question of who has the final say on election procedures remains with the judges.
