Trump Appeals to Supreme Court on Mail Ballot Rules
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Sunday renewed its appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking to allow new restrictions on mail ballots just as states begin sending ballots for the November midterm elections. The filing marks the third time the administration has asked the high court to intervene in the dispute, according to AP News.
The appeal came after U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Postal Service from implementing President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail voting. Talwani, an Obama appointee, ruled that the changes would make voter disenfranchisement “practically inevitable” given the tight timeline before Election Day.
The Executive Order and Its Implementation
Trump signed Executive Order “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections” on March 31, directing the Postal Service to create a system where mail ballots would only be delivered to voters on pre-approved lists submitted by states. On August 21, the Postal Service released a 95-page final rule requiring states to use a new online portal to submit voter lists and mandating specific envelope designs with unique barcodes. Ballots not matching the system would be refused delivery.
In her September 4 ruling, Talwani wrote that “Plaintiff States are required under state law to mail millions of ballots to voters on a prescribed timeframe. As detailed below, they are unable to pivot this late in the election cycle, nearly guaranteeing significant disenfranchisement for eligible voters.” She also noted that “the record includes no evidence relating to fraudulent mail voting to support the rushed implementation of the Final Rule.”
Ballots Already in Motion
North Carolina began sending mail ballots on September 4, with Alabama scheduled to follow on September 9 and at least five more states the week of September 13. Solicitor General John Sauer argued in the filing that time is running out.
“Ballots have already begun to be mailed in North Carolina, and more States will begin the mailing process as the injunction remains in place — including Alabama on September 9 and at least five States the week of September 13,” Sauer wrote. “Once those ballot envelopes enter the mailstream, there is no retrieving them.”
Sauer urged the court to “grant an immediate administrative stay of the order, followed by a full stay pending further review,” arguing that the injunction “risks sowing confusion and chaos” by making compliance with the rule voluntary rather than mandatory.
A Long Legal Battle
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority previously ruled on August 24 that the states’ challenge was premature because the Postal Service had not yet finalized its rule. The Court explicitly noted it was not ruling on the legality of the executive order, as SCOTUSblog reported.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissenting in that ruling, wrote that the decision “lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, noted the majority’s ruling “does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful.”
After the final rule was published, plaintiffs re-filed their lawsuits, leading to Talwani’s new injunction. The administration’s latest appeal was filed after the judge extended her block on September 4, as Votebeat documented in its ongoing coverage.
Whistleblower Concerns
Adding to the controversy, an unidentified USPS whistleblower alleged that the computer system being built for the program is “hastily built” and “error-riddled,” and could prevent millions of Americans from receiving mail ballots. The statement, released by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), warned of “potentially catastrophic problems” with the Federal Ballot Mail Portal system.
“The Postal Service has designed a system to disenfranchise millions of Americans,” Blumenthal said. “This administration seems hell-bent on changing the framework on casting ballots in this country clearly for political reasons.”
Jonathan Smith, president of the United Postal Workers Union, said the whistleblower report “reveals what this executive order was always about — denying Americans their hard-fought right to vote.”
What’s at Stake
Nearly one-third of U.S. voters cast mail ballots, with about 30% of all ballots in the 2024 presidential election sent by mail. The legal battle could have major ramifications for the midterms, when control of Congress is at stake.
Democratic-led states and voting rights groups, including the ACLU, argue the executive order is unconstitutional. Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU said, “The only emergency here is the one the administration created. The court’s temporary order preserves the voting procedures Americans have relied on for years, and it should stand.”
North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson warned that if the Supreme Court sides with the administration, it would “throw our election into chaos. The ballots are printed, the process is underway, and North Carolinians deserve a lawful and orderly election.”
As of the September 3 hearing, not a single state had announced it would voluntarily use the new Postal Service system. The White House defended the effort, with spokesperson Lauren Bis saying the software buildout is “neither complex nor unique” and that the administration is working “to ensure safe, transparent, and honest elections.”
What to Watch For
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the circuit justice for the region, has set a September 8 deadline for plaintiffs to file their arguments. With ballots already moving through the mailstream in multiple states, the court’s decision — expected in the coming days — will determine whether the new restrictions can take effect for the November election.
As Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame University, put it: “This is just the first inning of a very fast nine-inning game.”