Supreme Court rejects Trump mail ballot restrictions for midterms

Overview

Updated 1 hour ago

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump's bid to restrict mail-in voting for the November midterms. The decision leaves lower court injunctions in place, allowing states to send out mail ballots under the same rules they've used for years.

The case turned on an executive order Trump signed in March that would have let the U.S. Postal Service refuse to deliver ballots to voters who weren't on federal citizenship lists. Roughly a third of American voters cast ballots by mail, and state election officials warned the new system would be chaotic and disenfranchise millions.

Why it matters

Had the court allowed it, the Postal Service could refuse mail ballots to voters it deemed ineligible, moving election control from states to Washington.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

23 states + DC

States covered by the June injunction

Jurisdictions where implementation of Section 3 was blocked by Judge Talwani's June 25 ruling.

States voting almost entirely by mail

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington faced the steepest disruption.

Justices willing to let the plan proceed

Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas expressed various levels of support for Trump's request.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

People Involved

Donald Trump

President of the United States

Signed the executive order; bid to implement it rejected by Supreme Court

Shirley Weber

California Secretary of State

Led the 23-state coalition challenging the order

Indira Talwani

U.S. District Judge, District of Massachusetts

Issued two injunctions blocking the order's mail ballot provisions

D. John Sauer

U.S. Solicitor General

Argued the administration's emergency request; request denied

Organizations Involved

Supreme Court of the United States

Federal Judiciary

Rejected the administration's emergency request to lift injunctions

The highest federal court in the United States, with nine justices.

United States Postal Service

Federal Agency

Would have implemented Section 3; barred from doing so by injunctions

Independent federal agency that delivers mail nationwide, including election ballots.

League of Women Voters of Massachusetts

Nonprofit Advocacy Organization

Plaintiff in second successful challenge to the order

Nonpartisan organization promoting voter participation, plaintiff in a separate case against Section 3.

Timeline

March 2026 September 2026

6 events Latest: Today

Tap a bar to jump to that date

September 2026
Supreme Court rejects administration's emergency request
Today Legal

Court leaves injunctions in place, noting administration is unlikely to succeed on the merits; three justices dissent.
Today
August 2026
Second, nationwide injunction issued
Legal

Judge Talwani bars USPS from implementing Section 3 anywhere in the country in League of Women Voters case.
August 11th, 2026
Challengers urge court to keep block in place
Legal

Coalition of states argues the order would rush out an unprecedented voter-verification and ballot-interception program.
August 3rd, 2026
July 2026
Administration petitions Supreme Court
Legal

Solicitor General Sauer asks justices to lift the injunction, calling it extraordinary and harmful to election integrity.
July 27th, 2026
June 2026
Judge Talwani blocks mail ballot provisions in 23 states and DC
Legal

Ruling finds the order creates a direct and immediate dilemma for states preparing for the midterm election.
June 25th, 2026
March 2026
Trump signs election integrity executive order
Executive Action

Order creates citizenship lists, directs prosecutions, and bars USPS from mailing ballots to voters not on enrolled lists.
March 31st, 2026

Scenarios

Supreme Court strikes down Section 3 on the merits

Likely Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Voting rights experts citing the court's 'unlikely to succeed on the merits' language

After the midterms, the case returns to the Supreme Court for full review. The majority's September 15 language signals skepticism of the administration's legal position. A merits ruling would void Section 3 entirely, potentially also narrowing the citizenship verification provisions of the order.

Case goes moot, Section 3 dies quietly

Possible Resolves by Q1 2027

Discussed by: Court watchers who note the injunction deadlines may pass without a final ruling

The June 25 injunction was limited to the 2026 midterms. If the administration declines to press the case for future elections, the challenge could be dismissed as moot. The provision would remain on the books but unusable, effectively abandoned.

Court allows Section 3 for the 2028 elections

Unlikely Resolves by Q2 2028

Discussed by: Dissenting justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas

If the Supreme Court takes the case and reverses the lower courts, the executive order could take effect for the 2028 federal elections. The dissenting justices expressed willingness to let the administration implement its plan in current or future elections. This would require the majority to reverse its apparent skepticism.

Historical Context

3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

December 2000

Bush v. Gore (2000)

The Supreme Court halted a statewide recount in Florida, effectively deciding the 2000 presidential election for George W. Bush. The case turned on equal protection concerns about uneven recount standards.

Then

Bush won Florida's 25 electoral votes and the presidency by a 5-4 vote.

Now

Demonstrated the Court's power over election mechanics while affirming that election administration remains largely a state function.

Why this matters now

The current case tests how far the federal government can go in imposing uniform rules on state-run elections, a question Bush v. Gore raised but left unresolved.

October 2006

Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006)

The Supreme Court ruled that a lower court's injunction against Arizona's voter ID law should be stayed because it came too close to an upcoming election. Justice Stevens wrote that federal courts should avoid altering election rules at the last minute to prevent voter confusion.

Then

Arizona's voter ID law remained in effect for the 2006 primary.

Now

Established the 'Purcell principle,' which courts now cite to justify leaving state election procedures unchanged near Election Day.

Why this matters now

The Supreme Court's September 15 decision mirrors this logic, declining to impose sweeping new mail ballot rules with voting already underway.

March-November 2020

2020 mail voting expansion and litigation

States dramatically expanded mail voting during the COVID-19 pandemic. President Trump's campaign filed dozens of lawsuits challenging mail ballot rules in battleground states, most of which courts dismissed for lack of evidence.

Then

Record numbers of Americans voted by mail; Trump lost re-election and alleged fraud affected the outcome.

Now

Mail voting became permanent in many states, and the disputes seeded ongoing legal fights over ballot access and election administration.

Why this matters now

This executive order goes further than the 2020 litigation by using federal administrative power to directly regulate mail ballot delivery through the Postal Service.