Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to lift block on mail-in ballots rule

The Supreme Court on Monday night rejected a request by the Trump administration to lift a judicial block on a controversial U.S. Postal Service rule that critics feared would make it more difficult to vote by mail in the upcoming midterm elections.

In an unsigned order, the Supreme Court said the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the” preliminary injunction issued by a federal court judge in Boston preventing the USPS rule from being used in November’s elections nationwide.

The decision comes less than two months before Election Day for contests that will determine which political party controls each chamber of Congress. President Donald Trump‘s fellow Republicans hold slim majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, concurred with the ruling in a statement that said, “there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority.”

“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,” Kavanaugh added. “For that reason, I concur in the denial of the application for stay.”

Two of Kavanaugh’s fellow conservatives on the nine-justice court, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, dissented from the decision to reject a stay of the injunction against the Postal Service rule, which was issued in late August.

That rule, which implemented an executive order issued by Trump in March, established new standards for ballot envelopes and required states to create lists of voters who were eligible to obtain mail ballots.

Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court only prevents the Postal Service’s rule from being used in November’s elections. It is possible that the court will allow the rule to be used in future elections.

Alito, in his written dissent, said that some of the plaintiffs who had sued to challenge the Postal Service’s rule lacked legal standing to do so, “while the remainder are pursuing a claim that this Court has recently called a ‘Hail Mary pass’ that ‘rarely succeeds.'”

“The Government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also ‘enhance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail’ in order to better detect election fraud,” Alito wrote.

“On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical effects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elections. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.”

Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement, “Today, the Supreme Court refused to allow the federal government to throw our elections into chaos just weeks before Election Day.”

“The Postal Service exists to deliver Americans’ mail — not to rewrite election rules, demand voters’ personal information, or decide which ballots make it through the system,” Stewart said. “This was an extraordinary attempt to interfere with voting in all 50 states, and voters should never have been put in this position. Voters should never be caught in the middle of a political power warfare.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was part of the coalition suing to block the rule, said in a statement, “I am truly relieved the Court granted this reprieve.”

“Voters should never have to wonder whether a ballot they legally cast will be counted because the federal government suddenly changed the rules,” James said. “We will keep fighting to make sure every eligible ballot is counted come November. Now, I encourage all eligible Americans to get out and vote – and vote early.”