The Supreme Court has rejected a request from the Trump administration to implement changes to how the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) handles mail-in ballots for the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. The 7-2 decision, handed down on Monday, upheld lower court rulings that had blocked the executive order.
The executive order would have directed the USPS to verify voter citizenship and validate ballot materials. Key components included a barcode tracking system for mail ballot envelopes and the creation of State Citizenship Lists compiled by the Department of Homeland Security. The White House justified the order by asserting a federal duty under Article II of the Constitution to maintain confidence in election outcomes and prevent criminal violations, such as non-citizen voting.
However, states and voting rights organizations quickly challenged the order, arguing that the executive branch lacked constitutional authority to dictate how states maintain their voter rolls. Lower courts agreed, issuing preliminary injunctions that prevented the order from being put into effect before November 2026. The Supreme Court petition represented the administration's final attempt to secure judicial relief.
Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, writing for the majority, stated that the administration was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court's preliminary injunction and had failed to provide a valid reason for emergency relief. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring statement, indicated that while he believed the final USPS regulation might eventually fall within legal authority, applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be "arbitrary and capricious" and violate the Administrative Procedures Act. His primary concern was the insufficient time for state and local election officials to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.
Despite the court's decision, the administration had continued to finalize the USPS rule while the legal battle progressed. A whistleblower complaint alleged a rushed effort by the White House and USPS to install three new restrictive IT systems designed to verify citizenship. Critics argued these systems could potentially lead to the denial of thousands of mail-in ballots if the federal government disagreed with states on a voter's or ballot's eligibility.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, with Justice Alito writing a more than seven-page opinion arguing that he would have granted the Trump administration's request for a stay, allowing the order to be implemented for the 2026 elections. He contended that states and organizations suing the government lacked standing and dismissed concerns about voter education as "abstract social interests."
Election integrity experts had expressed doubts that the Supreme Court majority would risk the "chaos" that could ensue if such significant changes were introduced just months before elections, especially after many states had already begun sending out ballots that would not comply with the proposed rules. They also noted that the decision aligns with previous Supreme Court rulings that have recognized state supremacy in specific election administration authorities, such as where and how citizens vote.
