Supreme Court Keeps Mail-Ballot Rules Frozen as Midterm Voting Begins
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump administration's request to clear the way for mail-ballot restrictions before the November contests for control of Congress. Voting in the midterm elections was already underway when the justices acted. The decision allows states to continue sending out mail ballots under the same processes they have used for years, according to The Guardian.
The denial came in an unsigned one-paragraph order. The Court said the government is "unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the district court's preliminary injunction." It added that the equitable factors for obtaining emergency relief "do not favor a stay."
That language addresses a stay, not final judgment. The underlying injunction remains in place while litigation continues. Voting had already started.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurrence. He wrote the government had "at least a fair prospect of success" defending the plan, but implementation so close to election day would be "arbitrary and capricious." Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
The case stems from an executive order issued by Trump on March 31. It required the post office to refrain from delivering mail-in ballots to registered voters deemed ineligible when compared with Department of Homeland Security and other federal records.
The Postal Service then issued a rule titled "Ballot Mail for Federal Elections." The final rule was published at 91 Fed. Reg. 54,966 on August 26, 2026, according to a Supreme Court filing. Under the administration plan, states would have to adopt a uniform envelope style and submit lists of eligible voters to an online portal. The postal service could refuse to deliver ballots to states that did not comply.
Voting rights groups joined by 23 states and the District of Columbia sued to stop the proposed rule. They argued the Constitution "provides no authority for the president to issue orders governing administration of elections." A district court preliminary injunction now bars the Postal Service from implementing and enforcing the rule. The underlying district court case is numbered 1:26-cv-11549-IT, and California Attorney General Rob Bonta is listed as counsel opposing a stay in Supreme Court filings.
Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin began sending mail ballots to voters over the past week while the new system was still not active. Nearly one-third of the country votes by mail.
The emergency application followed weeks of procedural movement. In August 2026, the Court lifted a judicial hurdle to Trump's mail-in ballot curbs, according to Reuters. Republicans were then locked in a tight battle to retain control of Congress in the 2026 midterms. The administration again appealed to the Court on mail voting restrictions as the midterms loomed. On September 8, 2026, over 250 current and former members of Congress urged the Court to block the executive order limiting mail voting. As of that date, the plan to screen mail-in ballots remained blocked while the Court reviewed challenges to the new ballot rule.
The broader context here is timing as much as authority. An election-administration change affecting mail voting in multiple states, imposed after ballots were already being mailed, faces a steep equitable burden even when some justices see a plausible defense on the merits. Kavanaugh's concurrence separates those two questions. It credits the government's legal prospect while rejecting last-minute implementation. That distinction will shape how election officials, litigants and the Postal Service read the order. It preserves the status quo for November without resolving whether the federal government can condition ballot delivery on eligibility screening, envelope uniformity or portal compliance. The merits fight, centered on presidential power over elections reserved largely to states and Congress, continues past the midterms.
