The Supreme Court on Monday declined the Trump administration’s request to implement parts of a new U.S. Postal Service rule governing mail-in voting, leaving a federal injunction in effect while litigation continues. The unsigned order came less than two months before the November midterm elections, with North Carolina and Alabama already sending ballots by mail.
The court said the government was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s order and that the equitable factors governing emergency relief did not favor a stay. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred, writing that the Postal Service might have authority to issue the rule but that election officials “do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before” the November elections.
The dispute grew from a March executive order in which President Donald Trump directed federal agencies to take steps on mail-in voting as part of his administration’s effort to combat alleged voter fraud. Twenty-three states led by California, along with the District of Columbia, challenged the government’s implementation efforts in federal court in Massachusetts, arguing that the order conflicts with constitutional provisions assigning states authority over voter eligibility and the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections.
Talwani temporarily blocked parts of the executive order on June 25. The Supreme Court put that ruling on hold on Aug. 24, reasoning that the states had sued before implementation and had not yet suffered the injury needed for their case to proceed. After USPS issued its implementing rule, Talwani entered a new order and then a preliminary injunction barring the administration from requiring compliance with provisions involving ballot-envelope design and the submission of voter information through a USPS portal.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the rule imposed only modest requirements for envelopes and addressee information and denied that USPS was attempting to federalize mail-voting rules. The states warned that implementation so close to the election could cause chaos and prevent millions of voters from voting by mail. State and local election officials, including Republican secretaries of state from six states, separately told the court that implementing the rule now would almost certainly produce mistakes, delays and confusion.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. Alito argued that some challengers had not adequately established standing and that the states were unlikely to overcome USPS’s broad statutory authority to regulate the mail. He also said the government would suffer permanent harm because it could not enforce the rule during the November elections if Talwani’s injunction were later reversed, while acknowledging that the practical effects of implementing the rule close to the election posed a serious concern.