Supreme Court says Trump can't enforce new mail-in ballot regulation
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sept. 14, 2026, 7:36 PM EDT / Updated Sept. 14, 2026, 9:42 PM EDTBy Lawrence Hurley and Jane C. Timm
WASHINGTON — Casting a decisive blow against President Donald Trump's hopes of exercising federal control over the midterm elections, the Supreme Court on Monday prevented a U.S. Postal Service regulation concerning mail-in ballots from going into effect.
The court in a brief order rejected an emergency application the Trump administration filed seeking to block a lower court ruling that said the regulation was most likely unlawful. The court appeared to be divided 7-2, with two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissenting.
The measure would have imposed requirements on states for sending out mail-in ballots to voters. Typically, the Postal Service has no such role.
Implementing those significant changes just weeks before the election would most likely have caused major problems, and advocates feared it would make it harder for millions of Americans to cast their ballots.
Time was already running out for the rule to be implemented, with North Carolina sending out ballots Sept. 4 and other states following suit. There were also questions about whether the Postal Service even had the technical means to put it into effect.
Challengers, including various states led by California and nonprofit advocacy groups headed by the League of Women Voters, said the rule would cause unnecessary disruption ahead of the election and prevent people from voting.
"Today's decision is a victory for our democracy and a powerful affirmation of the rule of law," California Attorney General Rob Bonta, said in a statement. "The stakes in this litigation could not have been higher."
In a separate statement, Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, called the regulation "an extraordinary attempt to interfere with voting in all 50 states."
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday night.
Trump frequently rails against the widespread use of mail-in ballots as part of his broader complaints, offered without evidence, that the election system is rife with fraud.
Under the new rule, states would have to submit lists of eligible voters to the Postal Service, which would then verify that ballots were being sent to people on that list before it delivered them. States would also have to comply with directions about envelope design.
Trump's initial order envisioned the federal government's creating and sending the Postal Service lists of citizens and forcing it to send ballots to those people, but the final Postal Service proposal did not include that provision.
In a dissenting opinion, Alito said the federal government had the better of the argument. Concerns raised by states about the difficulties of implementing the rule gave him pause, he added, "but it is not enough to convince me."
Alito also complained that courts, including the Supreme Court itself, were partly to blame for the case's being decided so close to the election, saying they had taken too long to decide it.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another member of the court's conservative majority, wrote a brief concurring opinion saying there is a "fair prospect" the Postal Service has the authority to issue the rule but added it had to be blocked because it was issued so close to the election.
The Postal Service issued the regulation at the direction of the White House, with Trump issuing an executive order about the issue in March.
Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the regulation, saying the Postal Service had no authority to issue it.
She warned of the risk of "significant disenfranchisement" if the regulation were in effect and noted that the Trump administration had failed to offer any evidence that it was required to combat election fraud.
Various states have said they would not be able to comply with the regulation even if it were in effect, although some have indicated they could. A whistleblower complaint last week said the Postal Service system for checking ballots was flawed and that it could cause significant disruptions if it were implemented.
Talwani said that while litigation continues, states can voluntarily comply with the Postal Service regulation but have no obligation to do so. She also said the Postal Service cannot refuse to send ballots.
The federal government has downplayed the impact of the regulation, saying in court papers that it is a "modest design and information requirements for ballot-mail envelopes." When states send out ballots, the Postal Service would check to see that the envelopes were in compliance, and if they were not, they would be returned to election officials, Trump administration lawyers said.
Trump issued his executive order after he failed to persuade the Republican-controlled Congress to pass his SAVE America Act legislation, which would impose new voting restrictions nationwide, including proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter ID.
Talwani had earlier blocked key provisions of the executive order itself, but in an Aug. 24 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled she had acted prematurely.
Tags
Who is online
100 visitors
I'm voting in person. I know who I want to vote for. And I'm not going to risk my vote on political stunts by either party.
You know it's a sad attempt when even this SCOTUS cannot find any way to spin or uphold Trump's edict.
In this surreal environment where we witness daily attacks on our longstanding freedoms, our election process will, at least for this go round, be an example of a system that still works. Not that the results will not face yet another heinous attack from the deniers.
Please vote, and be ready to defend that right when those that are inclined to support the diminishing of that fundamental tenet loose the hounds.
I will enjoy defending the US constitution from unamerican christo-fascist maga scum ...
maga SCOTUS just postponed their imperial POTUS's edict with careful wording, to avoid going into hiding for the rest of their lives ...
And of course, despite these almost constant non partisan rulings from the Supreme Court, the democrats will pack the court with extreme partisan progressives to destroy the credibility of court and ensure there is never a non partisan ruling again. Becuase once progressives do that, republicans will have no choice but to then pack the supreme court with another dozen or so extreme justices who make Thomas look a progressive as soon as they can.
I doubt that, but if they do you only have Mitch McConnel to blame for paving that road.
So you think they are liars when the campaign on doing that?
Sure, since he kept the Court at nine justices like it's been, Democrats get to add 4 or 6 partisans in response. The nonsense some Democrats claim to believe.
Do you hold other politicians to the same standard when they campaign on shit we know they can't deliver on? You know, like making groceries and gas prices cheaper?
... and 4 week long wars?
I think a baker's dozen or so are sadly talking out of their cartons, a propensity adopted in spades by MAGA.
As to McConnel, he denied even a hearing to Merrick Garland, one of he most neutral judicial appointees ever.
The Senate has every right to deny an appointment. The Democrats will absolutely block any nominee if they control the Senate for Trump's last two years. But that's not we are talking about.
one of he most neutral judicial appointees ever.
To say that after his tenure as AG is pure comedy.
Why do you imagine they won't deliver on it, given the chance?
ou know, like making groceries and gas prices cheaper?
Yes. it's silly when Kamala Harris or anyone else campaigns on those things. I remember Pelosi' "secret plan" to bring down gas prices. Politicians can effect things like gas prices in the long term (increasing supply) but rarely in the short.
What was the senate's reasoning behind denying a hearing for Merrick Garland?
They applied the Biden rule, rendering a hearing pointless. Rejecting a nominee is a perfectly normal exercise of Senate power.
There are not enough left-wing populists to carry that kind of vote and they know it. I think it's a bad idea, but if they find the votes, they are legally allowed to do as was McConnell when he blocked Dem appointments. I don't even those campaigning on the idea think they have the votes.
I agree. It's silly and I can't believe they keep promising a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage... Its weird you only mention Democrats though when Trump has been talking about it for months... Now gas prices will magically lower AFTER the midterms?
I remain amazed that so many are so gullible.
I remain amazed that so many are so gullible... on purpose. We live in the era of 'alternative facts'
I can't see one Democrat in the Senate who would stand up to the majority. They ran the two who protected the filibuster out of the party.
they are legally allowed to do
Sure, because every Democrat in the House but one just voted against a constitutional amendment to keep the number of justices at 9.
Democrats and Republicans constantly do it. It's not new and won't stop anytime soon.
The fact the Dems could win the Senate in Nov is testament of how shitty the Reps are right now. I'm not convinced they will win the majority and if they do it still takes 60 votes to end the filibuster. They don't have 60 votes to do anything. Which is probably a good thing.
It's a mid term. Democrats should pick up seats.
and if they do it still takes 60 votes to end the filibuster. They don't have 60 votes to do anything.
Not at all. Rule changes are 50 votes (and the VP). That's how they were going to do it until Manchin and Sinema stopped them. And the party is much more radical now than it was a few years ago.
Democrats had far more issues with Garland than republicans did.
Every single Democrat voted for him to the partisan and political position of AG, and he rewarded to their support.
And they were greatly disappointed with his job performance — especially his slow-to-act attempt to hold Trump accountable.
garland's foot dragging kept the POS/POTUS's traitorous neck out of the noose ...
Sometimes rational patriotic Americans decide to move forward carefully and methodically which is great when your opponent cares about laws and has morals and ethics. Sadly, that just doesn't work to keep scum bag bigots like Trump from just wiping his ass on everything before anyone has a chance to even object. He's like that fucking piece of shit bully that sticks their dirty fingers in every pie at the picnic to ruin them for everyone else all because they were told they wouldn't be getting a piece. We need to use EVERY lever of government to throw these feckless fuckwads out on their ears and throw the book at them legally, prosecute to the hilt so that no one would ever dare shit on America again like Trump and his dickless sycophants continue doing.
now it's more important than ever to educate the rest of the world that maga doesn't represent america or americans. I propose that when sanity returns to our gov't, and it's time to adjudicate maga traitors and grifters, that we simply create a sacrificial lamb of an outpost somewhere easily accessible to the middle east and start shipping trump supporters there, saving the time and money involved in prosecution. after all, do those that have supported the many constitutional violations by their demigod and were so willing to trash the constitution and democracy for him really deserve it's protection?
somalia comes to mind first. it's a warlord nation, so what's one more group of ignorant killer scum running around. it has easy access to africans for enslaving, within relatively easy driving distance to israel for converting or killing jews when the thumper end-times come, it's well within range of iranian missiles, and close to all their cult leader's pals in saudi arabia with their totalitarian monarchy neighbors, and all their other friends in the other abrahamic religion that also has no problems with pedophilia.
they can even name their new christo-fascist homeland after trump, magaland. of course, it will be difficult for maga at first, since the seizure of all their american assets that they've gained supporting elected criminals will be compulsory, and the surrender of their american passports will be required, since they won't be american citizens anymore. but if maga plays the macho game as well as they talk like they do, it should be a piece of cake for the muscular class against the somalians.
lest we forget, deportations will be immediate for anyone in the US caught helping them, and none can ever return ...
/s
You're talking about the "nuclear option". Which has only been used by both parties to push judicial nominations through. It could be used as a rule change to end around other legislation, but has not been done as of yet.
Formally changing Senate Rule XXII requires a two-thirds supermajority (67 votes), which ain't gonna happen.