WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to implement sweeping new Postal Service rules that would have restricted mail-in voting ahead of the November midterms, delivering a significant setback to President Donald Trump’s long-running campaign against absentee ballots.
In a brief unsigned order, the justices left in place a lower-court injunction that blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing parts of a new rule requiring states to submit voter eligibility lists and limiting how election mail is handled. The majority said the government was “unlikely to succeed on the merits” and that the equitable factors did not favor emergency relief so close to Election Day.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a short concurrence noting that while the Postal Service might have statutory authority for such a rule in the future, “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.” Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Trump Reacts Strongly
President Trump quickly criticized the decision on social media, arguing the justices who ruled against the administration were “not the people I interviewed.” He has repeatedly claimed without evidence that mail-in voting is rife with fraud, a central theme of his political messaging since 2020.
Attorney General Todd Blanche said the administration would comply with the ruling while continuing to examine options. Voting by mail accounts for roughly one-third of ballots cast in recent national elections, and many states have already begun sending ballots to voters.
What the Rule Would Have Done
The blocked Postal Service rule would have required states to provide lists of eligible voters to the USPS, which would then verify ballots were sent only to those on the list — a significant expansion of the Postal Service’s traditional role. Democratic-led states and voting rights groups argued the changes would create chaos, disenfranchise legitimate voters, and exceed federal authority over state-run elections.
A federal judge in Boston had already paused the rule, finding it likely violated federal law and the Constitution’s allocation of most election administration to the states. The Supreme Court’s decision effectively ends the administration’s effort to impose the new requirements for the 2026 midterms.
Impact on the Midterms
With early voting underway in several states and Election Day less than two months away, election officials across the country expressed relief. California and other high-volume mail-voting states had warned that last-minute changes could overwhelm local systems and suppress turnout.
The ruling does not resolve longer-term questions about the Postal Service’s authority to regulate election mail. It does, however, remove an immediate source of uncertainty for voters who rely on absentee and mail ballots, including military personnel, overseas citizens, and older Americans.
Legal experts noted that the decision continues a pattern in which the current Court has occasionally checked executive efforts on election procedures when timing and practical disruption are significant factors.
As the midterm campaign intensifies, both parties are watching closely how the administration responds and whether further legal or administrative moves on voting rules emerge in the coming weeks.
Supreme Court order (unsigned): “The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction. And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay.”
Source: Supreme Court emergency docket order, September 2026.
