{"id":848187,"date":"2026-09-15T03:24:24","date_gmt":"2026-09-15T03:24:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/848187\/"},"modified":"2026-09-15T03:24:24","modified_gmt":"2026-09-15T03:24:24","slug":"supreme-court-denies-trump-administrations-request-to-implement-parts-of-rule-on-mail-in-voting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/848187\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court denies Trump administration\u2019s request to implement parts of rule on mail-in voting"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to allow the U.S. Postal Service to carry out parts of a new rule on mail-in voting. In a brief, unsigned order<\/a>, the justices left in place a ruling by a federal judge in Boston that bars the USPS from implementing aspects of the rule.<\/p>\n

Justice Brett Kavanaugh penned a one-paragraph concurrence<\/a> in which he agreed with the decision to deny the government\u2019s request. He suggested that, in his view, the Postal Service might have the power to issue the rule. But even if it does, he continued, election officials \u201cdo not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before\u201d the November elections.<\/p>\n

Justice Samuel Alito dissented<\/a> from the court\u2019s ruling, in an opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. He argued that some of the challengers in the dispute do not have a legal right to sue, known as standing, \u201cwhile the remainder are pursuing a claim that this Court has recently called a \u2018Hail Mary pass\u2019 that \u2018rarely succeeds.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s order comes less than two months before the midterm elections in November. At least two states \u2013 North Carolina and Alabama \u2013 have already begun to send out ballots by mail.<\/p>\n

As part of his administration\u2019s broader effort to combat alleged voter fraud, President Donald Trump in March signed\u00a0an executive order<\/a>\u00a0that directed federal agencies to take a series of steps on mail-in voting. For example, it required the Department of Homeland Security to send each state a list of the adult U.S. citizens in that state at least 60 days before a federal election and instructed the U.S. attorney general to investigate and prosecute state officials who allow people who are not eligible to vote to cast ballots.<\/p>\n

A group of 23 states, led by California, and the District of Columbia went to federal court in Massachusetts to challenge the government\u2019s efforts to implement the executive order. They argued that the order clashes with provisions in the Constitution that give states the power to determine voter eligibility and to set the \u201cTimes, Places, and Manner\u201d of holding congressional elections.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani agreed. In an order<\/a> on June 25, she temporarily prohibited the federal government from implementing parts of Trump\u2019s executive order on or before the upcoming November elections in California, the states joining the lawsuit, or D.C.<\/p>\n

On Aug. 24, the Supreme Court put Talwani\u2019s order<\/a> on hold, allowing the Trump administration to begin implementing the executive order. The majority explained that the states\u2019 challenge had come too soon because the order had not yet been carried out \u2013 and, therefore, the states had not suffered the kind of injury that would allow their lawsuit to go forward.<\/p>\n

Three days later, Talwani issued a new order<\/a> that prohibited the Trump administration, for 14 days, from requiring states to comply with several provisions of a new rule<\/a> issued by the U.S. Postal Service to implement Trump\u2019s executive order \u2013 for example, imposing requirements for the design of the envelopes used to mail ballots and for the submission of voter data into a USPS portal.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court<\/a> on Sept. 3, asking the justices to pause Talwani\u2019s second order. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer withdrew<\/a> that request three days later, after Talwani issued\u00a0a preliminary injunction<\/a>, which replaced her Aug. 27 temporary restraining order and barred the Trump administration from requiring states to comply with provisions of the USPS rule indefinitely while the litigation continues.<\/p>\n

Sauer instead filed a new request<\/a> with the Supreme Court, seeking to block Talwani\u2019s preliminary injunction. He argued<\/a> that Talwani\u2019s \u201ccontinuing prejudgment of the rule is baseless,\u201d and her rationale is \u201csimplistic,\u201d and he rejected any suggestion \u201cthat the Postal Service is trying to federalize the rules for mail-in voting.\u201d\u00a0Instead, he wrote, \u201cthe Postal Service\u2019s final rule imposes only modest envelope-design and addressee-information requirements for federal-election ballots sent via U.S. Mail.\u201d Without a stay of Talwani\u2019s order, Sauer continued, states will be able to mail out ballots that do not comply with the new rule.<\/p>\n

California and the other states countered<\/a> that \u201cUSPS\u2019 unprecedented experiment with our Nation\u2019s most cherished franchise\u2014the right to vote\u2014is unlawful.\u201d And they suggested that the effects of a stay could lead to \u201cchaos,\u201d with some states unable to comply with the rule by the November elections, \u201cmeaning that millions of voters would be unable to vote by mail and some would not be able to vote at all.\u201d Moreover, they added, \u201ceven if state and local officials were somehow able to implement the new rule perfectly, there is a high risk of technical breakdown, ineptitude, and delay on the part of USPS.\u201d<\/p>\n

A \u201cfriend of the court\u201d brief<\/a> filed by state and local election officials \u2013 including Republican secretaries of state from Kentucky, North and South Dakota, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Kansas \u2013 echoed this caution. They told the court that \u201c[a]ttempting to implement the Rule now will almost certainly lead to mistakes, delays, and confusion for both voters and election officials.\u201d<\/p>\n

A brief filed on Wednesday by the League of Women Voters and other civic groups, which had filed their own challenge to one part of the rule, also urged the court<\/a> to leave Talwani\u2019s preliminary injunction in place. The groups told the justices that \u201cCongress charged the Postal Service with delivering the mail nationwide, subject to a scheme of narrow exceptions for specified categories of material that Congress itself\u2014not USPS\u2014has deemed \u2018nonmailable\u2019 and subject to rules of general application such as sufficient postage. Mail ballots fall outside those congressionally prescribed exceptions.\u201d<\/p>\n

In an order issued on Monday night, the court indicated that the \u201cGovernment is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to\u201d Talwani\u2019s order \u2013 a key factor in determining whether to grant the relief that the government was seeking. \u201cAnd the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court\u201d \u2013 such as whether the government will be permanently harmed if Talwani\u2019s order is not put on hold \u2013 \u201cdo not favor a stay,\u201d the court added.<\/p>\n

In dissent, Alito contended that the Trump administration \u201chas made the showings necessary for a stay.\u201d First, he reasoned, the civic groups challenging the rule had relied on \u201ccryptic filings\u201d to assert their right to sue. But they must \u201cmake specific allegations establishing that at least one identified member had suffered or would suffer harm,\u201d Alito stated, and provide that member\u2019s name.<\/p>\n

As for the states, Alito continued, the dispute boils down to \u201cwhether the Postal Service has statutory authority to promulgate the rule.\u201d In this case, Alito asserted, the challengers must meet a high bar, but they cannot do so, because the USPS \u201chas broad authority to regulate the mail.\u201d<\/p>\n

Alito agreed with the Trump administration that it would suffer permanent harm if Talwani\u2019s order is not put on hold while the litigation continues, because it would not be able to implement the rule in time for the November elections even if her injunction is ultimately reversed. \u201c[T]he Government,\u201d Alito emphasized, \u201chas a strong interest in enforcing the rule.\u201d<\/p>\n

By contrast, although Alito made clear that he took \u201cth[e] problem\u201d of \u201cthe practical effects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elections\u201d \u201cvery seriously,\u201d he concluded that \u201cit is not enough to convince me to deny the application.\u201d Some states, he noted, support the rule and say that they can comply with it during the November elections. Moreover, he suggested, the challengers and the courts \u201cbear a substantial share of the blame\u201d for the delay in the implementation of the rule.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court on Monday declined to allow the U.S. Postal Service to carry out parts of a…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":848188,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[23,229199,3,8306,357041,21,19,22,20,25,24],"class_list":["post-848187","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-united-states","tag-america","tag-court-news","tag-news","tag-open","tag-post-type-post","tag-united-states","tag-united-states-of-america","tag-unitedstates","tag-unitedstatesofamerica","tag-us","tag-usa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/848187","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=848187"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/848187\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/848188"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=848187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=848187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=848187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}