The Supreme Court has paused a lower court’s ruling that blocked key directives from President Trump’s executive order to restrict mail-in voting for this fall’s midterm election in about two dozen states and Washington, D.C.
But with the start of absentee voting for the midterms just weeks away, legal and practical hurdles loom over whether the U.S. Postal Service and other federal agencies can finish carrying out Trump’s directives.
Released Monday, the order marks the latest court action in the legal fight over Trump’s March order — one of many efforts he has made to try to exert control over how elections are run.
As part of a separate but related lawsuit, the U.S. Postal Service remains blocked from following Trump’s directives under a nationwide ruling released Aug. 11 by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston.
In June, Talwani issued an earlier ruling that blocked key parts of Trump’s order in the 23 mainly Democratic-led states, plus Washington, D.C., that sued the administration.
The Supreme Court did not weigh in on the legality of Trump’s executive order, which has so far not directly affected eligible absentee voters’ option to cast ballots by mail.
“The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell,” the high court said in an unsigned order for the lawsuit brought by almost two dozen states and Washington, D.C.
The court’s three liberal justices, however, dissented from the court’s decision.
“Because I believe the structure of the Executive Order, the Government’s representations, and the equities counsel against emergency relief requiring the States to wait to bring their serious challenges to the Executive Order, I respectfully dissent,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Elena Kagan.
In a separate dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.”
“To be sure, the Court has not foreclosed States from challenging this blatantly unconstitutional Order,” Jackson added. “But it declines to explain when, exactly, is the right time to bring a meritorious election-rule claim challenging unconstitutional interference with electoral processes. The majority just signals that these claimants had to wait—even though the election cycle had started and despite facing pocketbook costs, threats of prosecution, and an affront to their sovereignty—before receiving the relief to which they are likely entitled.”
After the high court’s decision, New York State Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, said the states challenging Trump’s order are now exploring legal options.
“This decision is a painful setback, but it will not be the final word,” James said in a statement. “The right to vote is sacred, and no administration should be allowed to put that right in jeopardy by making it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballots.”
Trump’s order calls for the Department of Homeland Security to develop state lists of adult U.S. citizens and for the Postal Service to obtain lists of eligible mail voters from states. According to the order, USPS is supposed to deliver mail-in ballots only to people on those lists. All election officials would also be required to have certain barcodes on their mail ballot envelopes.
The Postal Service has released a final rule for federal ballot mail in response to Trump’s order.
Trump — who himself voted by mail as recently as this year in Florida — has said he issued this order to stop illegal voting by non-U.S. citizens in federal elections, which research has found to be infinitesimally rare.
Talwani’s June ruling concluded Trump overstepped a president’s authority under the Constitution, which gives power to state legislatures and Congress to set federal election rules. USPS, which is independent of a president’s administration, also has no legal authority to control mail-in voting, the judge found.
The Supreme Court has now granted emergency requests from the administration and 12 Republican-led states to pause the judge’s June ruling in 23 states and Washington, D.C., while not weighing in on the legality of Trump’s order.
It remains unclear what impact the high court’s order will actually have on eligible mail-in voters.
The legal fight is far from over, with a separate set of lawsuits led by Democrats and voting rights groups continuing to play out as this fall’s election draws closer.
The administration has previously acknowledged the shrinking window of opportunity for the administration to implement Trump’s order for this year’s midterms. In a July court filing, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that there may not be enough time to resolve the legal challenges through the appeals process with the courts.
“That is especially true because implementation efforts for any USPS rule or DHS policy will need to begin well before November—indeed, as soon as early to mid-August—to be effective for the 2026 election, particularly given that absentee and mail-in voting begin (in some States) several weeks prior to Election Day,” Sauer noted.
Editor’s note: USPS is a financial supporter of NPR.
Edited by Benjamin Swasey
