US Supreme Court Sides With Trump for Now on Mail-in Ballot Restrictions

The US Supreme Court has lifted one court order blocking President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing an executive order restricting the use of mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections.

 

However, the fate of Trump’s order remains uncertain, as a separate injunction blocking a key part of the plan remains in place.

 

Republicans are locked in a tight battle to retain control of Congress in the midterms. Restricting mail-in ballots could disproportionately benefit Republicans, given that Democratic voters have traditionally been more likely to use them.

 

Monday’s ruling by the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority applied to a June injunction issued by Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani.

 

A coalition of 23 mostly Democratic-governed states and the District of Columbia had sued to stop the executive order on mail-in ballots. The Supreme Court said on Monday that it was too soon for the states to challenge the order, but left the door open for them to sue again as the midterm elections approach.

 

Trump’s executive order, issued in March, directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit to the states a list of US citizens eligible to vote in each state. It also directed the Justice Department to prioritise investigating and prosecuting state and local election officials who issue ballots to people deemed “not eligible” to vote in federal elections.

 

The order also required the US Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters on each state’s approved mail-in ballot list.

 

Trump has vowed to end the use of mail-in ballots nationwide before the midterms and has long cast doubt on their security, although evidence of voter fraud is rare.

 

The court on Monday did not act on another injunction issued by Talwani that blocked the USPS nationwide from enforcing the directive’s tighter rules for voting by mail. The judge issued that order on August 11 in a separate lawsuit filed by voting-rights groups.

 

Judge Ruled Trump Lacked Authority

 

Trump’s executive order is part of his wider efforts to make fundamental changes to US elections. Trump, who has made false claims of widespread fraud in US elections, including his 2020 loss to former Democratic President Joe Biden, has pressed the Republican-controlled Congress to pass a contentious package of voting restrictions called the SAVE America Act.

 

In June, Talwani ruled that the president lacked the authority to order changes to how states administer federal elections, noting that under the US Constitution, states have the role of determining voter-eligibility requirements. The judge also said federal agencies lacked the ability to compile accurate lists of citizens for each state.

 

Despite Talwani’s action, the USPS on Friday released a finalised rule to implement Trump’s order. The rule would require states to provide the postal service with lists of voters who received mailed ballots, as well as unique barcodes on outbound and return ballot envelopes.

 

In Monday’s decision, the conservative majority agreed with the Justice Department that the lawsuit challenging Trump’s directive was premature and that the states did not have the required legal standing to sue at this stage.

 

The agencies have not yet taken concrete actions affecting the states, and any harm they allege is therefore speculative, the court said. Trump’s order itself “does not harm the states”, the court added.

 

California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said on Monday: “The Supreme Court just let the Trump administration move ahead (for now) with its plan to disenfranchise voters across the country. California will be suing AGAIN to block these Orwellian rules from being implemented.”

 

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The USPS declined to comment.

 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan, said the states should not have to wait to challenge the order.

 

“Today’s decision does not address whether the president’s attempts to interfere with states’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful,” Sotomayor wrote. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also issued a separate dissent.

 

The states contend that their claims are not hypothetical and that the administration’s “rushed effort to change the rules of mail voting on the eve of the November midterms risks disenfranchising a substantial number of voters”.

 

“This decision is a painful setback, but it will not be the final word,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. “The right to vote is sacred, and no administration should be allowed to put that right in jeopardy by making it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballots.”

 

In her June ruling, Talwani rejected the administration’s arguments, finding that the lawsuit was not filed too soon and that the states had legal standing because they would face election-administration disruption, compliance costs and a credible threat of criminal prosecution.

 

For enquiries or further information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.