Supreme Court Slams Brakes On Trump’s Mail-Ballot Plan

The Supreme Court on Monday night kept President Donald Trump’s new mail-ballot rules on hold ahead of the November midterms.

The justices denied the Trump administration’s request to suspend a lower court injunction, leaving the rules blocked while litigation continues. States can continue mailing ballots under their current procedures.

In an unsigned 7-2 order, the court said that the government was “unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” to the injunction and had failed to satisfy the other requirements for emergency relief.

The Postal Service’s rule would require states to use ballot envelopes with an election-mail logo, machine-scannable features, and a barcode unique to each voter. Election officials would also have to submit envelope designs for approval and upload voters’ names and addresses to a federal portal. The Postal Service could reject noncompliant mailings and return them to election officials.

The administration said the Postal Service had authority to impose the requirements, while election officials warned that implementing them weeks before the midterms could delay or prevent the delivery of ballots. Alabama, North Carolina, and Wisconsin had already started sending ballots when the Supreme Court acted.

The dispute previously reached the Supreme Court in August. As The Daily Wire reported, the justices paused an earlier injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, because the states had sued before demonstrating that the Trump administration’s plan would harm them. The Supreme Court emphasized that it had not decided whether the plan itself was legal.

After the Postal Service finalized its rule, the states filed a renewed challenge. Talwani issued a preliminary injunction, writing that states were “unable to pivot this late in the election cycle” without risking disenfranchising voters.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the rule should remain blocked for the midterms, but he said there was “at least a fair prospect” it fell within the Postal Service’s authority. He concluded that applying it during the 2026 elections would be “arbitrary and capricious” because officials lacked sufficient time to implement it.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the administration had met the requirements for a stay. Monday’s decision does not permanently invalidate the rule, but it effectively prevents its use during this year’s elections.

More from this network:
Domains for Sale · GOTPeople.org · TheDSAPlatform · The Truth About Socialism

Donate to GOTPeople.org