High Court Rejects Administration Bid to Restrict Mail Ballots Before Midterms
The Supreme Court declined to lift a lower court's injunction against a U.S. Postal Service rule that would have imposed new restrictions on election mail, effectively ending the administration's attempt to curb mail voting for the 2026 midterms. The unsigned order stated the government was unlikely to prevail on the merits, while Justice Kavanaugh suggested the rule might be lawful but untimely for this election cycle. Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, arguing the Postal Service has statutory authority to regulate mail.
The ruling stems from a March executive order that sought to restrict mail-based absentee voting, which the administration argued was necessary to secure election mail. The Postal Service rule would have limited delivery of election ballots to individuals states had identified as eligible voters.
Judge Talwani's injunction held the rule violated federal law and constitutional provisions assigning election administration to state and local officials. The administration's separate effort to create a DHS-managed eligible voter list remains pending before the justices, with California and 16 other states challenging the order in Massachusetts federal court.
This decision could affect voter access for millions of Americans who rely on mail ballots, particularly older voters, rural residents, and those with disabilities. By keeping the rule paused, the Court may preserve established state election procedures for the midterms, though the underlying legal questions remain unresolved. The ruling could also shape future federal-state disputes over election administration, as the justices weigh statutory authority against constitutional delegation of election powers.