Pull to refresh
Logo
What Changed
Following Why Sign Up
Supreme Court rejects Trump mail ballot restrictions for midterms

Supreme Court rejects Trump mail ballot restrictions for midterms

Rule Changes

Justices leave lower court injunctions intact for November; the administration keeps pushing for 2028

September 15th, 2026: Trump attacks Supreme Court justices after ruling

Overview

Updated Sep 17

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, letting states send out ballots under the same rules they've used for years.

Trump attacked the justices online the next day, and Attorney General Todd Blanche said the administration will keep pushing for election changes. The case turned on Trump's March executive order, which would have let the Postal Service refuse ballots to voters not on federal citizenship lists. Roughly a third of voters cast ballots by mail; state officials said the system would 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

3
Justices open to the plan for the future
Alito and Thomas dissented from the denial. Kavanaugh concurred but said the rule may fall within Postal Service authority, leaving open a 2028 bid.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Log in Sign Up

People Involved

Donald Trump
Donald Trump
President of the United States
Signed the executive order; bid to implement it rejected by Supreme Court; attacked the justices after the ruling
 Shirley Weber
Shirley Weber
California Secretary of State
Led the 23-state coalition challenging the order
 Indira Talwani
Indira Talwani
U.S. District Judge, District of Massachusetts
Issued three injunctions blocking the order's mail ballot provisions
 D. John Sauer
D. John Sauer
U.S. Solicitor General
Argued the administration's emergency request; request denied
 Todd Blanche
Todd Blanche
U.S. Attorney General
Said the administration will keep pursuing election changes past the 2026 midterms

Organizations Involved

Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Federal high court
Rejected the administration's emergency request to lift injunctions

The highest federal court in the United States, with nine justices.
United States Postal Service
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
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts
Nonprofit 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

11 events Latest: September 15th, 2026 · 2 months ago Showing 8 of 11
Tap a bar to jump to that date

  1. Trump attacks Supreme Court justices after ruling

    Latest Statement

    Trump posted a lengthy online screed a day after the court blocked his mail ballot plan, accusing the justices of bowing to 'crazed' liberal interests.

  2. Blanche says election changes will continue after November

    Statement

    Attorney General Todd Blanche told reporters at a White House briefing that the administration will keep pursuing changes to mail voting past the 2026 midterms and into the 2028 cycle.

  3. Supreme Court rejects administration's emergency request

    Legal

    Court leaves injunctions in place, noting administration is unlikely to succeed on the merits; Alito and Thomas dissent, Kavanaugh concurs.

  4. Judge Talwani issues preliminary injunction

    Legal

    The preliminary injunction replaced the Aug 27 temporary restraining order, barring the administration indefinitely from enforcing the USPS rule while litigation continues. Solicitor General Sauer then withdrew the administration's Supreme Court request.

  5. Judge Talwani issues temporary restraining order

    Legal

    Three days after the Supreme Court lifted her injunction, Talwani barred the administration for 14 days from requiring states to comply with several provisions of the USPS rule.

  6. Supreme Court temporarily lifts June 25 injunction

    Legal

    Justices put Judge Talwani's June 25 injunction on hold, ruling the states' challenge came too soon because the executive order had not yet been enforced. This let the administration begin implementation.

  7. Second, nationwide injunction issued

    Legal

    Judge Talwani bars USPS from implementing Section 3 anywhere in the country in League of Women Voters case.

  8. 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.

  9. Administration petitions Supreme Court

    Legal

    Solicitor General Sauer asks justices to lift the injunction, calling it extraordinary and harmful to election integrity.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

Scenarios

1

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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

White House issues a revised mail ballot rule for 2028

Possible Resolves by Nov 7, 2028

Discussed by: Attorney General Todd Blanche; Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence

Blanche said the administration's election integrity work will not stop at the midterms. Kavanaugh wrote that there is 'at least a fair prospect' the rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority. A revised rule issued with more lead time before the 2028 presidential election could clear the timing objections that sank this version.

Historical Context

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

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.

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.

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.

Sources

(8)
+2
WOODTV.com (AP) Daily Independent (AP) SCOTUSblog CNN Politics Reuters Fox News SCOTUSblog CNN Politics