Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to revive mail voting restrictions ahead of midterms, in huge win for voters 

By Alexandra Hutzler

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett near President Trump in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., in February 2026. (Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett near President Trump in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., in February 2026. (Photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

In a major win for voters, the Supreme Court Monday rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to reinstate its mail voting restrictions ahead of November’s pivotal midterm elections. 

The justices declined to lift a block on the measure that a lower court judge has said is likely unconstitutional.

“The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction,” the court said in a brief, unsigned order. “And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay.”

The ruling was 6-1-2, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing a concurring opinion and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting.

Alito concluded that the practical concerns raised by the plaintiff states were “not enough to convince me to deny the application.”

The ruling means states can continue to mail absentee ballots as they always have to millions of Americans who choose to vote by mail. One third of the electorate, or 47 million people, did so in 2024.

The Supreme Court previously overrode U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s initial order blocking the rule back in August, saying it had been issued prematurely. But after the Postal Service issued its final rule, voting rights groups and the Democratic attorneys general of 24 states and the District of Columbia were free to challenge its legality.

President Donald Trump’s anti-mail voting executive order, issued in March, marked a culmination of his years-long attack on the popular voting method following his 2020 election loss.

To implement the order, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) required states to submit lists of voters who intend to vote by mail and to design new ballot envelopes with trackable barcodes. If states didn’t comply, the Postal Service said it would not deliver ballots to voters.

The White House said the measures were to promote election integrity, despite providing no evidence of fraud. Studies have repeatedly shown mail voting to be safe and instances of fraud to be exceedingly rare. 

Pro-voter groups and Democratic officials immediately challenged Trump’s order and the Postal Service plan as an unconstitutional and illegal attempt to exert federal control over elections run by the states. They also warned the changes were practically impossible to implement so close to an election.

The Department of Justice argued the requirements were “modest” and represented lawful mail regulation by the agency.

Talwani on Sept. 4 barred the mail voting restrictions from going into effect while legal challenges proceed, though she allowed states to voluntarily comply with parts of the order, such as sending mail ballot designs to USPS for approval.

On Sunday night, a federal district judge overseeing a separate challenge to the executive order, brought by Democrats, also issued a preliminary injunction blocking the USPS from implementing it, and blocking states from voluntarily complying with it*.

*The Elias Law Group (ELG) represents Democratic plaintiffs in the separate challenge to the executive order. ELG Firm Chair Marc Elias is the founder of Democracy Docket.