Supreme Court blocks Trump's mail-ballot rule for midterms, but the fight is far from over

The Supreme Court has blocked the Trump administration's attempt to impose new federal controls on mail-in ballots before the November midterms — but the one-paragraph ruling deliberately avoided the deeper question of whether the administration has the power to do what it tried to do. That question is very much alive.

President Trump signed Executive Order 14399, titled 'Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,' on March 31, 2026. The order directed the U.S. Postal Service to create new standards for federal mail ballots, including state-submitted voter lists, special barcoded envelopes, and verification processes that could result in noncompliant ballots being blocked. The Postal Service published a proposed rule in June 2026 and a final rule on August 26, 2026, citing its rulemaking authority and the executive order's mandate to 'reduce the risk of fraud' and 'protect the integrity of federal elections,' according to the Federal Register.

Federal courts issued injunctions blocking implementation, and the Supreme Court upheld one of those injunctions in a brief order, preventing the Postal Service from rolling out the system for the 2026 election. But the Court did not rule on whether the Postal Service actually has the authority to screen and reject mailed-in ballots — a question left open for future litigation.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence that election-law observers are treating as a blueprint for a second attempt. In Kavanaugh's view, the rule failed only because 'state and local election officials did not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections' — not because the Postal Service lacks the underlying authority. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, signaling they would have allowed the rule to take effect, according to Washington Monthly.

I think instead it was a psy-op operation that sadly has had success because of the chaos, the confusion, and the doubt that was sown.— Phil Keisling, vote-by-mail expert and former Oregon Secretary of State

Keisling, who helped build Oregon's pioneering all-mail voting system, argues the administration may never have expected the rule to survive the courts. The real damage, in his view, is the uncertainty it created: voters who would have cast mail ballots are now hesitant. 'It has so put a cloud over mail ballots that people have not been signing up,' he said, according to Washington Monthly.

The Postal Service, for its 250 plus years of existence, has operated under a simple premise: universal delivery. So the idea that the Postal Service was going to be an arbiter of what ballots could be mailed is mind-blowing … This is a foundational change in how the Postal Service works.— Barbara Smith Warner, senior advisor at the Center for Responsive Government and former executive director of the National Vote at Home Institute

Beyond the federal fight, a parallel reshaping of mail voting is underway in state legislatures. According to Ballotpedia, lawmakers in 23 states adopted 45 bills and resolutions related to absentee and mail-in voting in 2025 — more than the 30 passed across 17 states in 2024.

The most significant state-level change came in Utah, where Gov. Spencer Cox signed HB 300, ending the state's all-mail voting system and requiring voters to request a mail-in ballot starting in 2029. Kansas, where Republicans hold a veto-proof supermajority, overrode Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly's veto of SB 4, which eliminated the previous rule allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within three days — now any ballot arriving after 7 p.m. on Election Day will not be counted. North Dakota enacted a similar Election Day receipt deadline through HB 1165, according to Ballotpedia.

Not all movement has been in one direction. California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 930, extending the state's deadline for accepting mail ballots from three days after Election Day to seven days. Nevada's legislature approved SJR 1, which would enshrine the state's all-mail voting system in the state constitution — though it would need to pass again in 2027 before going to voters in 2028, according to Ballotpedia.

Eight states and the District of Columbia currently conduct elections exclusively by mail. Research cited by Washington Monthly shows turnout in those states outpaces states without universal mail voting, including in primaries. With Utah's change taking effect in 2029, that group may shrink.

With 34 states now requiring absentee ballots to arrive by Election Day — up from fewer before the 2025 legislative wave — and one state, Louisiana, requiring arrival even earlier, the window for mail voting is narrowing in much of the country, according to Ballotpedia. In Mississippi and Texas, a Fifth Circuit ruling currently blocks officials from counting late-arriving ballots even where state law would permit it; that case is before the Supreme Court.

Washington Monthly also reported that FBI Director Kash Patel said he was 'open' to sending federal agents to polling places — a step that would contravene existing law. That development adds to a broader picture of pressure on election access heading into the midterms, even as the mail-ballot rule itself remains blocked.

The administration has signaled it intends to pursue the mail-ballot restrictions further. With Kavanaugh's concurrence offering a procedural path — give states more time to implement — and two justices already on record in favor, the legal battle over who controls the mail in federal elections is likely to return to the Supreme Court before the next presidential election.

Why it matters — The Supreme Court's order keeps mail voting intact for November, but a Justice's concurrence, two dissents, and dozens of new state laws signal that the rules governing how tens of millions of Americans cast ballots are likely to keep changing — possibly before the next presidential election.

Reported by washingtonmonthly.com, federalregister.gov, ballotpedia.org