The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s request to implement new Postal Service requirements for mail-in ballots before the 2026 midterm elections.
The unsigned order left a nationwide preliminary injunction against the regulations in effect, allowing existing state procedures for mail voting to continue through the Nov. 3 elections.
“The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction,” the Supreme Court said. “And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay.”
The case concerns a final Postal Service rule developed after Trump issued a March executive order directing the agency to establish uniform standards for federal election mail.
Under the blocked rule, ballot envelopes would have needed an official election-mail logo, compatibility with high-speed processing equipment and a specialized barcode unique to each voter.
States would have been required to submit their proposed envelope designs for Postal Service review and upload basic information about mail-ballot recipients to an agency portal.
Mail that failed to satisfy the requirements would not have been accepted and would have been returned to election officials. States could correct the problems and resubmit the mail.
The administration characterized the requirements as measures intended to improve ballot tracking and election security.
A coalition of states led by California and several voting-rights organizations challenged the policy, arguing that the Postal Service exceeded its authority and interfered with state control over elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts blocked the final rule shortly after it was issued, finding that its implementation close to Election Day could disrupt voting.
The administration asked the Supreme Court to suspend Talwani’s injunction while litigation continued, but the justices declined to do so Monday.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the outcome while indicating that the Postal Service could ultimately prevail on the underlying question of its authority.
“There is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority,” Kavanaugh wrote in a separate concurrence.
However, Kavanaugh said applying the regulations during the 2026 elections would be “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act.
He said state and local election officials did not have enough time to reasonably implement the rule before voters cast their ballots.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. Alito argued that the government had satisfied the legal requirements necessary for the Court to suspend the injunction.
Alito also questioned whether some challengers had standing to sue and disputed the argument that the Postal Service clearly exceeded its legal authority.
“The Court incorrectly denies the Government’s application for a stay of a universal injunction that bars implementation of a final rule concerning election ballot mail,” Alito wrote.
A second federal judge, Trump appointee Carl Nichols, separately blocked the rule Sunday after the Democratic Party filed another legal challenge.
Nichols concluded that the regulations risked preventing properly submitted ballots from being counted and that key portions likely exceeded the Postal Service’s authority.
The Supreme Court’s decision arrived after mail ballots had already begun going to voters in Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin. Other jurisdictions were preparing to distribute ballots during the following days, per Trending Politics.
Election administrators told the courts that changing envelope designs, creating new barcodes and transferring voter information to a federal portal could cause delays and confusion.
The ruling means the Postal Service is expected to continue processing election mail under existing procedures during the midterms.
The decision does not conclusively determine whether the Postal Service possesses the authority to impose similar requirements in a future election.
That issue can continue through the lower courts, and the Supreme Court could consider the merits of the policy after further litigation.
