Trump's Mail Ballot Plan Rejected: What Would the USPS Have Been Allowed to Do?

The Supreme Court on Monday, September 14, rejected the Trump administration's emergency bid to enforce new US Postal Service (USPS) restrictions on mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, leaving a lower court's nationwide block in place.

What the Court Decided

In a brief, three-sentence, unsigned order, the court said the government was "unlikely to succeed on the merits" for purposes of obtaining emergency relief, and had not shown that legal or practical considerations warranted a stay. Conservative justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, and would have granted the administration's request to pause the lower court's ruling. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the outcome but notably indicated that the USPS may ultimately have the authority to impose these kinds of requirements — suggesting the door isn't fully closed on future iterations of the policy.

What the Rejected USPS Plan Would Have Required

Under the now-blocked rules, which followed a Trump executive order, states would have been required to turn over lists of voters' names and addresses and use specific barcodes unique to each voter on ballot envelopes in order for USPS to deliver them. Mailings that didn't include the required election-mail logo or couldn't be scanned by USPS's high-speed equipment would have been returned to election officials to correct and resubmit — a process that critics warned could delay or effectively invalidate ballots given how little time officials had to comply. State and local election officials would also have had to submit their envelope designs to USPS for review and upload basic voter information to an online USPS portal.

Why This Case Mattered So Much

CNN described the case as one of the most significant to appear on the Supreme Court's expedited docket in years, noting that a majority of justices blocked a procedure that would have given USPS the "unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots." Notably, even some Republican election officials cautioned that the proposal could lead to chaos and mass disenfranchisement if allowed to take effect so close to the election.

The Timing Problem

The stakes were heightened by scheduling: mail voting had already begun in states including Alabama, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, with more states — including Western states such as Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, where elections are conducted primarily or entirely by mail — set to follow shortly. Election officials argued that implementing an entirely new compliance system just weeks before the midterms would create mistakes, delays, and confusion for both voters and administrators, since state and local election offices had very little time to redesign their systems.

Trump's Stated Rationale

Trump has said he pushed for the USPS rule change as a way to stop illegal voting by non-US citizens — a practice numerous studies and election audits have found to be extremely uncommon. Notably, in this specific legal fight over the USPS plan, the administration's lawyers provided the courts with no evidence of mail-voting fraud. Trump has been a longtime, vocal critic of mail voting more broadly, posting last year that he intended to "lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS," and claiming "ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING" — even though Trump himself voted by mail in Florida this year.

The Partisan Usage Gap

Data offers relevant context on who actually relies on mail voting: according to a national survey by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the share of voters who cast ballots by mail in 2024 was notably higher among Democrats (37%) than Republicans (24%) — a gap that has fueled ongoing debate over the partisan implications of restricting mail-voting access.

How the Lower Courts Ruled

Two separate federal judges had already blocked the plan before it reached the Supreme Court. A federal judge in Boston issued a preliminary injunction earlier this month, finding the requirements were likely illegal because the Postal Service has no authority to control mail-in voting procedures, which fall under states' constitutional role in administering elections. A second federal judge issued another preliminary injunction late Sunday, reinforcing the block just before Monday's Supreme Court ruling.

What States and Voting Rights Groups Argued

States and voting rights organizations challenging the rules argued the requirements exceeded USPS's legal authority and improperly interfered with states' constitutional responsibility for administering their own elections. They also warned the changes could cause valid ballots to be rejected or delayed due to the compressed compliance timeline.

A Separate, Related Development

Adding to the broader context surrounding election administration this cycle, a federal whistleblower has separately alleged that federal agents may have broken state laws after the Department of Homeland Security began surging personnel for what it called the "Unlawful Voter Initiative" — a claim that, while distinct from the USPS case, reflects the wider tension this election cycle around federal involvement in state-run election processes.

What This Means Going Forward

Monday's ruling means states can continue using their existing mail ballot procedures for the 2026 midterms without complying with the disputed USPS requirements. However, the decision doesn't necessarily resolve every underlying legal question — Kavanaugh's concurrence specifically left open the possibility that USPS could eventually be found to have the authority to impose similar rules in a future case, meaning this legal fight may not be entirely over even as the immediate midterm-cycle threat has been averted. For continuing coverage, see the full NPR report.