Supreme Court, 7 to 2, kills Trump's USPS mail-ballot rule for the midterms

The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a stinging defeat Monday night, blocking a sweeping U.S. Postal Service rule that would have imposed strict new federal controls on mail-in voting just seven weeks before November's midterm elections. The unsigned order, released shortly before 10 p.m. Eastern, effectively freezes the Postal Service's regulations in place while a legal challenge works through the courts.

The Supreme Court rejected a request by the Trump administration to lift a judicial block on the controversial USPS rule that critics feared would make it more difficult to vote by mail in the upcoming midterm elections. In the unsigned order, the 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 party controls each chamber of Congress. Republicans hold slim majorities in both the House and the Senate.

What the rule would have done

The rule, which implemented an executive order Trump signed in March, established new standards for ballot envelopes and required states to create lists of voters eligible to obtain mail ballots. States would have had to submit those lists to USPS, which would then verify that specific voters were receiving mail-in ballots before sending them out. The rule also carried strict requirements on envelope design.

A separate provision of the underlying executive order directed the attorney general to "prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of State and local officials who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election." Election administrators in several states said that threat alone was enough to create a chilling effect on their operations.

A group of 23 states, led by California, and the District of Columbia went to federal court in Massachusetts to challenge the implementation of the order, arguing it conflicts with constitutional provisions giving states the power to determine voter eligibility and to set the "Times, Places, and Manner" of holding congressional elections.

The ruling's fine print matters

The court was not unanimous in its reasoning, even if the outcome was lopsided. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision, which rejected a stay of the injunction against the Postal Service rule that was issued in late August.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence is the one that will shape how this litigation continues. Kavanaugh wrote that "there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority" but that "state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections." In other words, Kavanaugh left the door open for the administration to revive the regulation after November, and at least three justices appear sympathetic to some version of the underlying policy.

The ruling leaves open the question of whether the restrictions are legal overall and can be implemented in future elections, but the structure of the decision suggests that a majority of the justices are skeptical.

A months-long legal fight with multiple turns

Monday's order was the culmination of a legal sprint that began the moment Trump's executive order landed in March. On March 31, 2026, Trump signed an executive order targeting mail-in voting, directing federal agencies to compile lists of "verified" citizens and restrict ballots to those lists.

The administration escalated the matter to the Supreme Court three times in the lead-up to Monday's ruling, as North Carolina last week became the first state to begin sending mail-in ballots to voters less than 60 days before the midterm elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts issued the original block and toughened it over successive weeks. She concluded that "immediate implementation of the Final Rule issued less than seventy days before the November 2026 election threatens disenfranchisement of millions of United States citizens who seek to vote by mail" and noted that "the record includes no evidence relating to fraudulent mail voting to support the rushed implementation of the Final Rule."

A USPS whistleblower also recently alleged that the agency defied court orders and rushed to build out the new ballot system, putting thousands of mail ballots at risk. That allegation is still under review and was not addressed in Monday's Supreme Court order.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer had framed the administration's emergency applications in the most urgent terms. Sauer wrote that the lower court order "partially nullifies the Postal Service's efforts to address the risk that the federal mails will be used to perpetrate voter fraud, a particularly pernicious species of fraud that dilutes the votes of lawful voters." The court's majority was not persuaded.

Reactions in Washington

Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, 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."

New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a separate statement that she was "truly relieved" by the ruling. The White House did not issue an immediate response Monday night.

The practical effect is significant. The ruling means voters won't face new hurdles to mail voting in 2026, and mail voting in the 2026 election will largely function the same way it has in previous elections. States that had been racing to build out USPS-compliant envelope systems and electronic voter portals now do not have to.

The stakes are hard to overstate in a midterm cycle where both chambers are genuinely competitive. The renewed challenge and ongoing litigation played out on a tight timeline, as several states were set to issue mail-in ballots in September, leaving little time to implement the proposed regulations. The complaint, brought by 24 attorneys general and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, argued that the rule "violates the Constitution and federal statutes many times over" and that they would have had to redesign ballot envelopes and build new systems to transmit voter lists to USPS with just weeks to comply.

The administration has not announced whether it will seek a full merits ruling before the election. Given Monday's language about the government being "unlikely to succeed," that path looks narrow. The underlying challenge in Talwani's court continues, meaning the question of whether any version of the USPS mail-ballot rule can lawfully exist will not be resolved before November 3.

What to Watch

• Talwani's court, Boston: The preliminary injunction stays in place, but the full merits case proceeds. Watch for a scheduling order from the District of Massachusetts that could produce a final ruling on the rule's legality before the end of the year.
• Kavanaugh's concurrence as a roadmap: His language that the rule "may" be within USPS statutory authority is a direct invitation to the administration to relitigate after November. Expect a revised executive action or a new rulemaking push in 2027 if Republicans hold Congress.
• Alito and Thomas in dissent: Two conservatives argued the rule should have been allowed to proceed. That minority position could form the core of a future majority if the court's composition or the factual record shifts.
• State ballot operations: North Carolina has already begun mailing ballots. Officials in other states will now proceed under their existing procedures. Any USPS delivery disruptions or delays in battleground states could still become a flashpoint in the final weeks of the campaign.
• The USPS whistleblower allegation: A claim that the Postal Service defied court orders while building its ballot system remains live. Congressional investigators on the House Oversight Committee have not yet indicated whether they will seek testimony on it.

Sources: CNBC | CBS News | NPR | Axios | SCOTUSblog | Votebeat | NBC News | Brennan Center for Justice