WASHINGTON, United States – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s request to revive new Postal Service restrictions on mail ballots, leaving a lower-court injunction in place ahead of the November midterm elections.
The court’s order denied the government’s request for an emergency stay in United States Postal Service v. California. The justices said the government was unlikely to prevail in its challenge to the preliminary injunction and that the circumstances did not justify lifting the lower court’s order while the case proceeds.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a concurring opinion, while Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented.
The decision means the Postal Service cannot currently enforce the contested rules against the states covered by the injunction for the 2026 election.
Rules sought new federal requirements
The dispute stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March directing the Postal Service to develop new requirements for federal mail ballots.
The resulting Postal Service rule, issued in August, would require states and local election officials to meet new envelope-design requirements and submit voter information through a federal system before ballots could be processed under the new system.
The rules also contemplated Postal Service verification of ballot mail and allowed ballots that did not satisfy the requirements to be rejected or returned.
Opponents argued that the federal government was attempting to impose new conditions on the administration of elections, an area traditionally governed by state election authorities and subject to congressional regulation under the Constitution.
The administration has argued that the Postal Service has authority to regulate mail and that the changes were intended to protect the integrity of federal elections.
Lower courts had already blocked implementation
The Supreme Court’s action followed litigation in federal courts that had temporarily prevented the Postal Service from implementing the new requirements.
A federal district judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction on September 4. The administration subsequently sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking the justices to suspend that injunction while the appeal continued.
The Supreme Court’s docket shows that the government filed its emergency application on September 6 after withdrawing an earlier application. The justices received extensive briefs from states, election officials, voting-rights organizations and other groups before taking up the request.
The Court ultimately denied the application on September 14.
States prepare for November voting
The timing is significant because some states have already begun distributing absentee or mail ballots for the November 3 elections.
The proposed federal rules would have required election officials to make changes to existing ballot systems while preparations for the election were already underway. Opponents argued that implementing the requirements on such a short timetable could disrupt ballot delivery and potentially prevent eligible voters from receiving ballots.
A filing before the Supreme Court said the rules would affect states that rely heavily on mail voting and argued that the Postal Service did not have the statutory authority to condition delivery of election ballots on compliance with the new federal requirements.
The administration disputed those arguments and maintained that the Postal Service’s requirements were within its authority.
The Supreme Court’s order does not resolve every underlying legal question surrounding the administration’s broader election policies. Instead, it leaves the preliminary injunction in effect while the litigation continues.
For voters and election officials, the immediate consequence is that the contested Postal Service requirements cannot take effect as planned for the states covered by the injunction.
The broader legal fight over the federal government’s authority to regulate aspects of mail voting could continue beyond the 2026 election.
Reporting Credit: Supreme Court of the United States — September 14 emergency order and case docket; U.S. Postal Service and U.S. Department of Justice — federal mail-ballot rule and emergency application; state election authorities and litigating states — challenges to implementation of the federal requirements.
