The Supreme Court ruled on Aug. 24 that lower courts acted too quickly when they partially blocked President Donald Trump's executive order cracking down on mail-in ballots ahead of the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.
In a divided, unsigned opinion, the high court agreed with the Trump administration that parts of the policy were prematurely put on hold before finalized implementation rules were established. This decision lifts a previous lower court ruling that had blocked those specific provisions from taking effect in nearly half of the states that challenged them.
However, the most significant portion of the executive order—which carves out a new role for the U.S. Postal Service—remains blocked nationwide. This is due to a separate lower court ruling in a different lawsuit brought by voting rights organizations. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's latest decision does not prevent states from renewing their legal challenges against the Postal Service's role once the administration begins executing its finalized rules. As a result, it remains highly uncertain how much of Trump’s executive order will actually be active in time for the upcoming midterm elections.
The majority emphasized that its decision "does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful," writing that "on that score, time will tell."
The court's three liberal justices dissented from the ruling. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in her dissent that while the court "has not foreclosed States from challenging this blatantly unconstitutional Order," it nonetheless "declines to explain when, exactly, is the right time to bring a meritorious election-rule claim challenging unconstitutional interference with electoral processes."
The executive order, signed by Trump in March, instructs federal agencies to compile a list of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state and to utilize federal data to assist state election officials in verifying voter eligibility. Under the directive, the Postal Service would oversee mail-in voting, establishing "uniform standards" for ballots and requiring states to provide lists of verified voters.
In June, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston ruled that components of the order were unconstitutional. She ordered that those parts could not be enforced this year in the District of Columbia and the 23 states that had sued over the directive while the litigation continued. The administration argued that the states' lawsuit was premature because the executive order was not yet fully implemented. After a federal appeals court disagreed with that argument, the administration petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene.
While that request was pending, Judge Talwani blocked the Postal Service from carrying out Trump's directive in any state, responding to a separate legal challenge brought by voting rights groups. During this time, the Postal Service finalized its proposal for implementing the order. The Justice Department described these final rules as "modest requirements for preparation and envelope design" for mailed ballots, arguing they fall well within the Postal Service's traditional authority to set mailing standards for sensitive mail. The Postal Service noted that states are not required to use the mail to conduct elections, but for those that do, the agency can take steps to "improve operational efficiency and support the faithful execution of federal law."
A dozen Republican-led states filed support for the administration, asking the Supreme Court to fully restore Trump's executive order. Conversely, the coalition of blue and swing states challenging the order argued that allowing the changes to take effect before the midterms could disenfranchise millions of voters due to the "high risk for errors and the limited window for correcting mistakes." Voting rights groups have also accused the administration of trying to "weaponize" the Postal Service to force states to violate voter privacy by accessing sensitive personal information in voter files.
The legal battle over absentee ballot rules could be decisive for the 2026 midterms, where Democrats could take control of Congress by flipping only a handful of seats in the House and Senate. Although mail-in voting has declined since its peak during the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 30% of voters still cast ballots by mail in the 2024 elections. According to the MIT Election Data & Science Lab, Democrats are statistically more likely to vote by mail than Republicans.
Under the U.S. Constitution, states are responsible for administering federal elections. Trump has consistently pushed for greater federal control over the process since losing his 2020 reelection campaign, a loss he continues to falsely attribute to widespread voter fraud, even as he continues to vote by mail himself.
In July, the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated that Trump's executive order was already straining state election offices on a compressed calendar. The appeals court warned that the order "would sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters" if allowed to take effect for the November elections. Aside from the March executive order, Trump has proposed legislation requiring voters to show ID at polling places and proof of citizenship to register, though that bill has stalled in Congress. Judges have also blocked a separate executive order that would have required potential voters to present citizenship documentation to register to vote.
