Supreme Court Rejects Mail-Ballot Limits as Midterm Voting Begins

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump administration's request to enforce mail-ballot restrictions before the November elections for control of Congress. Voting in the midterms was already underway.

The ruling lets states keep sending 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 emergency relief "do not favor a stay."

A stay in this context is emergency permission to enforce a policy during a lawsuit. The Court denied that request. It did not issue a final judgment. The district court's preliminary injunction, a temporary block that holds while the case continues, stays in place. 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 putting it into effect so close to Election Day would be "arbitrary and capricious." Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

The case comes from an executive order issued by Trump on March 31. It directed the post office not to deliver mail-in ballots to registered voters found ineligible after a check against 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 plan, states would need to use a uniform envelope style and send lists of eligible voters to an online portal. The Postal Service could refuse to deliver ballots for states that did not comply.

Voting rights groups, joined by 23 states and the District of Columbia, sued to stop the 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 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 mailing 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 request followed weeks of procedural steps. 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 approached. 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 legal authority. Changing mail-voting procedures in several states after ballots were already in the mail creates a difficult test for emergency relief, even if some justices think the government might have a plausible argument. Kavanaugh's concurrence draws that line clearly. It acknowledges the government's legal prospects while rejecting last-minute action. That distinction will guide how election officials, lawyers and the Postal Service read the order. It keeps current procedures for November without deciding whether the federal government can condition ballot delivery on eligibility checks, uniform envelopes or portal compliance. The fight over presidential power in elections run largely by states and Congress continues after the midterms.