Supreme Court Rules Against USPS Mail-in Voting Rule

<p>The Supreme Court struck down the U.S. Postal Service's rule restructuring mail-in voting on September 14, 2026, halting a significant initiative from the Trump administration.</p><p>The decision is viewed as a victory for voting rights advocates and the states that challenged the administration's plan, reversing an earlier Supreme Court decision that allowed President Trump's mail-in voting order to proceed.</p><hr /><ul><li>The justices' prior unsigned order permitting the rule was not a ruling on its merits; however, the court stated this time that the government is "unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge." </li></ul><p>While the court denied the administration's request, the justices were divided on the merits of the case.</p><ul><li>Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, noted that "there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority" but applying the proposed rules would be "arbitrary and capricious" for the midterm elections, as state and local officials "do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule." </li><li>Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented in a separate opinion.</li></ul><p>The Trump administration sought the Supreme Court's intervention on September 8, 2026, asking it to pause an order from U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani that blocked key parts of the rule.</p><ul><li>Judge Talwani found that the states were likely to succeed in their claims that the rule was unconstitutional and granted a two-week stay on implementing sections of the final rule, including provisions on standard ballot envelopes and registration for an online voter information portal.</li><li>The rule also directs the agency to review ballot envelopes for compliance, although North Carolina began sending ballots to voters on September 4 and Alabama will begin on September 9.</li></ul><p>In his application to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer acknowledged that ballots were to be sent out imminently in North Carolina and Alabama, arguing that "[o]nce those ballot envelopes enter the mailstream, there is no retrieving them; ordinary appellate review thus 'would come too late' to cover those ballots."</p><ul><li>He contended that Talwani's pause "imposes serious irreparable harm on the federal government, the States themselves, and the voting public."</li></ul><p>The decision is likely to be the final word on the rule during this election cycle, with Judge Talwani stating earlier this month that it was unclear how the government would implement the plans with the election approaching.</p><ul><li>Steven Monteith, the executive vice president of the Postal Service, stated in a declaration filed on September 8 that the agency continues to make "refinements" to the portal, which he predicted would be available for "voluntary use by sometime next week."</li><li>He added that under Talwani's restraining order, USPS was not mandating design review for state mail but has made review available for states that want to "voluntarily submit" envelopes to ensure compliance with the rule.</li></ul><p>While the administration has dismissed concerns, a USPS whistleblower recently alleged that the agency defied court orders and rushed to build out the new ballot system, putting thousands of mail ballots at risk.</p><ul><li>The whistleblower claimed the Postal Service built the system in weeks, rather than the nine months to a year typically needed for a project of this complexity.</li></ul><p>The rule is one aspect of the various ways the administration has attempted to reshape elections, including efforts to obtain state voter rolls and redraw congressional maps. Some of these efforts have been challenged in court, while others could have significant impacts in the upcoming elections.</p>