Supreme Court Blocks Trump’s New Mail-Ballot Requirements

Synopsis

It’s the third time the Trump administration brought the plan to the high court’s emergency docket after groups blocked the effort.

Previously, the justices ruled in Trump’s favour, finding that blue states likely had no right to sue over the president’s executive order itself. Now, they’ve ruled against him in the latest phase, which focused on the U.S. Postal Service’s implementation of the president’s directive as Election Day rapidly approaches.

The Justice Votes

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump’s appointees to the court, publicly indicated he voted with the majority. He said there’s at least a fair prospect that Trump’s plan is legal.

Kavanaugh wrote, “But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented.

Joined by Thomas, Alito wrote, “Some of the plaintiffs lack standing, while the remainder are pursuing a claim that this Court has recently called a ‘Hail Mary pass’ that ‘rarely succeeds.”

No other justice publicly disclosed their vote.

The New Mail-Ballot Plan

The plan would’ve required states to upload lists of voters to receive mail ballots. The Postal Service would also only deliver ballots that meet new design requirements, like an official logo and barcode.

It became the latest emergency case to thrust the justices into the midterm elections. The Supreme Court last week lifted an order instructing Missouri they could use Republicans newly passed congressional map. Meanwhile, the justices are still mulling another case, which concerns the use of an overhauled immigration clearinghouse to scrutinize voter rolls.

It also marks a rare loss for the president on the high court’s emergency docket. Though it hasn’t been a clean sweep, the justices have repeatedly agreed to step in after judges have blocked key aspects of Trump’s agenda.

The Lawsuits

The mail-in voting lawsuits began after Trump signed an executive order in March targeting the practice, which he claims contributes to significant fraud. Election officials have identified limited instances of fraud, but no evidence has emerged suggesting the massive scale Trump has described.

The lawsuits claim the plan exceeds Trump’s authority.

Blue states had warned of chaos under the administration’s plan, saying that it would be impossible to comply with the new requirements ahead of November’s contests. Some had suggested it would leave millions unable to vote by mail.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said in a statement, “Today’s decision is a victory for our democracy and a powerful affirmation of the rule of law”.

He added, “The stakes in this litigation could not have been higher. Voting is the fundamental right from which all other rights flow, and all 50 states allow ballots to be cast by mail in some form.”

Can the Postal Service Handle the Ballots?

Solicitor General D. John Sauer has described the plan as modest, emphasising that federal immigration authorities aren’t second-guessing states’ mail voter lists. He argued it was well within the Postal Service’s authority to regulate how to handle sensitive mail and called the judge’s block “baseless.”

Last week in the court filings, Sauer wrote, “Every day that the district court’s injunction remains in place, more ballots are being sent through the U.S. Mail without the benefits that the Rule provides for election integrity,”.