Supreme Court keeps Trump mail-ballot restrictions blocked ahead of Nov. 3 elections
Supreme Court of the United States
government
26A305 Postal Service v. California (09/14/2026)
Supreme Court of the United States
government
Supplemental Brief and Appendix, Postal Service v. California, No. 26A305
Associated Press
news
Supreme Court rejects Trump’s mail ballot limits before elections
Untracked bias
100% of tracked sources are High factuality
Bias and factuality ratings from Media Bias Fact Check. Outlets without a rating are marked “Untracked.”
Stay denied
The Supreme Court refused to let USPS enforce new mail-ballot restrictions before the Nov. 3 midterms.
Rules unchanged
States can continue mailing ballots under existing procedures while litigation continues.
Two injunctions
Federal judges in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., both blocked the rule before the Supreme Court acted.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let the Trump administration and the U.S. Postal Service enforce new mail-ballot restrictions before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, preserving existing state procedures after voting had already begun.1
The unsigned Sept. 14 order denied the government’s emergency request to pause a lower-court injunction. The court said the administration was unlikely to prevail in its challenge and that the equities did not favor emergency relief.1
The decision leaves states free to keep mailing ballots under long-standing systems while lawsuits continue over whether USPS has authority to condition ballot delivery on new envelope, barcode and voter-data requirements.3
The ruling came with congressional control at stake and ballots already moving through the mail. The Associated Press reported that states could continue using processes that have accounted for nearly a third of votes cast, while the administration had sought clearance to impose the restrictions before pivotal November contests.3
The legal question extends beyond postal logistics: whether a federal agency, acting after a presidential directive, can impose nationwide conditions on the mechanics of state-run elections.
The challenged USPS rule required ballot-envelope designs to meet new standards, use specialized barcodes and be tied to voter information uploaded to a federal portal before mailings could be accepted.1
Justice Brett Kavanaugh supplied the narrowest rationale for denying immediate relief. He wrote that there was at least a “fair prospect” the rule could fall within USPS’s statutory authority, but that applying it in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious because state and local election officials lacked enough time to implement it reasonably before Election Day.1
That framing left open the possibility that USPS authority could be litigated later. But it effectively settled the practical question for this election cycle: Election administrators should proceed without trying to redesign ballots, reprint envelopes, build data uploads or await federal approval in the final weeks before Nov. 3.7
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. Alito argued that USPS has broad statutory power to regulate the mail and that the government had made the showing required for a stay. He said the core dispute was not a constitutional takeover of elections, but whether the Postal Service had exceeded the authority Congress gave it to regulate mail handling and delivery.1
In a supplemental filing the same day, Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that a new injunction from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia did not materially change the government’s position. He said a Supreme Court stay would require lower courts to follow with parallel relief.2
The government argued that recipient-list requirements helped ensure mail was sent only to intended addressees and helped track fraudulent use of the mail. It also said blocking the rule would irreparably harm federal efforts to deter voter fraud and bolster public confidence, even without record evidence of significant fraud in the upcoming elections.2
Opponents, including Democratic-led states and voting-rights groups, argued that the rule crossed from postal administration into election administration. They said Congress gave USPS power to move and process mail — not to decide which voters states may send ballots to or to reject election mail that fails new federal data checks.6
The Supreme Court’s action left in place a Boston federal court injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who blocked USPS from enforcing the rule while legal challenges proceed.10
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had already refused to put Talwani’s order on hold, saying the rule likely risked disenfranchising millions of voters while offering minimal gains against fraud.10
A parallel injunction came late Sunday from U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington, D.C., who blocked implementation in consolidated cases brought by groups including the DSCC, LULAC and the NAACP.2
Nichols concluded that key parts of the rule exceeded USPS’s authority, especially the requirement that states enroll mail voters in a federal portal and make ballot delivery contingent on compliance with that system.2
Nichols also found that the timing itself created irreparable harm. His opinion said plaintiffs had shown it would be close to impossible for some states to redesign and reprint compliant envelopes, that portal and review delays were likely, and that a significant number of otherwise valid absentee or mail-in ballots could go uncounted.2
AP reported that mail ballots were already being sent in at least Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin, with more states preparing to distribute ballots the same week.4
That timing made the case less about abstract authority and more about operational reality: Election offices cannot safely change core ballot-mail procedures while voters are already receiving ballots.
For state and local election officials, the immediate instruction is continuity. States may keep sending ballots under existing laws, forms, envelope designs and mailing schedules unless a later court order changes the landscape.3
Officials in heavily mail-voting states said the ruling avoided a last-minute overhaul. Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said the decision allowed election work to continue without upending processes to meet unrealistic ballot-mail requirements. Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson said Utahns could have confidence the election would proceed as normal.3
The practical tasks now fall into three categories: keep previously scheduled ballot mailings on track, tell voters that existing mail-ballot procedures remain valid, and monitor the still-pending district-court cases for any post-election or future-cycle rulings on USPS authority.
The Supreme Court did not issue a final merits ruling on whether USPS can adopt similar rules for future elections. But by declining emergency relief on Sept. 14, with Election Day on Nov. 3, the court made clear that federal election-mail changes imposed this late cannot displace state systems already in motion.1
MPs have begun oral evidence on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, with UNHCR, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, the National Crime Agency and refugee-policy witnesses testing ministers’ case for tougher enforcement alongside safeguards. The provisions most likely to attract amendment pressure are those on modern-slavery credibility rules, removal-stage trafficking claims, asylum support payments and the new immigration appeals body.
President Trump’s acceptance of key ethics language has moved the Senate’s Clarity Act closer to a procedural vote, but Democrats and state attorneys general remain divided over whether the restrictions would be enforceable. The bargain now tests whether Congress can regulate digital assets while writing conflict-of-interest rules that bind a sitting president.
Beijing rejected a report that Iranian forces obtained satellite imagery of a U.S. base in Jordan from Chinese entities before a deadly July attack. The allegation remains unverified by other outlets, but it highlights how commercial space imagery is becoming part of a wider technology-control dispute involving China, the United States and Middle East security.
The resignation of Chubu Electric’s top executives and withdrawal of Hamaoka reactor restart applications turn a utility governance failure into a political test for Tokyo’s push to normalize nuclear power. The case threatens to complicate Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s effort to accelerate restarts as Japan weighs energy costs, emissions targets and public trust.
Emergency stay
A request asking a higher court to temporarily pause a lower-court order while an appeal proceeds.
Arbitrary and capricious
A standard under administrative law used to invalidate agency action that is unreasonable, inadequately explained or poorly timed.
Purcell principle
A doctrine cautioning federal courts against changing election rules close to an election when officials and voters rely on existing rules.
Ultra vires
A legal claim that an agency acted beyond the authority Congress gave it.
Comments