Supreme Court won’t restore Trump’s mail-in voting plan for midterms
The Hill reports:
By Zack Shonfeld
The Supreme Court refused to clear the way for President Trump’s mail-in voting plan for the midterms on Monday over the dissents of two conservative justices, keeping intact a judge’s block that declared the plan unlawful.
It’s the third time the Trump administration brought the plan to the high court’s emergency docket after groups have blocked the effort.
Previously, the justices ruled in Trump’s favor, finding that blue states likely had no right to sue over the president’s executive order itself. Now, they’ve ruled against him in the latest phase, which focused on the U.S. Postal Service’s implementation of the president’s directive as Election Day rapidly approaches.
“The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction,” the court’s brief, unsigned ruling reads.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump’s appointees to the court, publicly indicated he voted with the majority. He said there’s at least a fair prospect that Trump’s plan is legal.
“But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented.
“Some of the plaintiffs lack standing, while the remainder are pursuing a claim that this Court has recently called a ‘Hail Mary pass’ that ‘rarely succeeds,’” wrote Alito, joined by Thomas.
No other justice publicly disclosed their vote.
The plan would’ve required states to upload lists of voters to send them a mail ballot. The Postal Service would also only deliver ballots that meet new design requirements, like an official logo and barcode.
It became the latest emergency case to thrust the justices into the midterm elections. The Supreme Court last week lifted an order instructing Missouri they could use Republicans’ newly passed congressional map. And, the justices are still mulling yet another case, which concerns the use of an overhauled immigration clearinghouse to scrutinize voter rolls.
It also marks a rare loss for the president on the high court’s emergency docket. Though it hasn’t been a clean sweep, the justices have repeatedly agreed to step in after judges have blocked key aspects of Trump’s agenda.
The mail-in voting lawsuits began after Trump signed a new executive order in March targeting the practice, which he continually claims contributes to significant fraud. Election officials have identified limited instances of fraud, but no evidence has emerged suggesting the massive scale Trump has described.
The lawsuits claim the plan exceeds Trump’s authority.
Blue states had warned of chaos under the administration’s plan, saying that it would be impossible to comply ahead of November’s contests. Some had suggested it would leave millions unable to vote by mail.
“The efforts that state and local elections officials would have to undertake to even begin an attempt at compliance are herculean,” the states wrote in court filings last week.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer has described the plan as modest, emphasizing that federal immigration authorities aren’t second-guessing states’ mail voter lists. He argued it was well within USPS’s authority to regulate how to handle sensitive mail and called the judge’s block “baseless.”
“Every day that the district court’s injunction remains in place, more ballots are being sent through the U.S. Mail without the benefits that the Rule provides for election integrity,” Sauer wrote in court filings last week.
The case has come to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket three times, each after U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a block stopping the president. She is an appointee of former President Obama who serves on the federal trial bench in Boston.
In the first round, which focused on Trump’s original executive order itself from the spring, the Supreme Court said the blue states suing likely had no right to sue over it.
In August, the Postal Service announced its final plan to implement the president’s directive for the midterms.
When Talwani temporary halted that, too, the Justice Department brought the case back to the high court. But before the justices ruled, Talwani replaced her block with a new, longer one. Then, the administration filed a third and latest plea at the Supreme Court.
As the Supreme Court keeps Talwani’s block in place, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee who serves in the nation’s capital, blocked Trump’s policy nationwide on Sunday in response to separate challenges. That ruling had not yet reached the justices.
By Zack Shonfeld
The Supreme Court refused to clear the way for President Trump’s mail-in voting plan for the midterms on Monday over the dissents of two conservative justices, keeping intact a judge’s block that declared the plan unlawful.
It’s the third time the Trump administration brought the plan to the high court’s emergency docket after groups have blocked the effort.
Previously, the justices ruled in Trump’s favor, finding that blue states likely had no right to sue over the president’s executive order itself. Now, they’ve ruled against him in the latest phase, which focused on the U.S. Postal Service’s implementation of the president’s directive as Election Day rapidly approaches.
“The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction,” the court’s brief, unsigned ruling reads.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of Trump’s appointees to the court, publicly indicated he voted with the majority. He said there’s at least a fair prospect that Trump’s plan is legal.
“But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented.
“Some of the plaintiffs lack standing, while the remainder are pursuing a claim that this Court has recently called a ‘Hail Mary pass’ that ‘rarely succeeds,’” wrote Alito, joined by Thomas.
No other justice publicly disclosed their vote.
The plan would’ve required states to upload lists of voters to send them a mail ballot. The Postal Service would also only deliver ballots that meet new design requirements, like an official logo and barcode.
It became the latest emergency case to thrust the justices into the midterm elections. The Supreme Court last week lifted an order instructing Missouri they could use Republicans’ newly passed congressional map. And, the justices are still mulling yet another case, which concerns the use of an overhauled immigration clearinghouse to scrutinize voter rolls.
It also marks a rare loss for the president on the high court’s emergency docket. Though it hasn’t been a clean sweep, the justices have repeatedly agreed to step in after judges have blocked key aspects of Trump’s agenda.
The mail-in voting lawsuits began after Trump signed a new executive order in March targeting the practice, which he continually claims contributes to significant fraud. Election officials have identified limited instances of fraud, but no evidence has emerged suggesting the massive scale Trump has described.
The lawsuits claim the plan exceeds Trump’s authority.
Blue states had warned of chaos under the administration’s plan, saying that it would be impossible to comply ahead of November’s contests. Some had suggested it would leave millions unable to vote by mail.
“The efforts that state and local elections officials would have to undertake to even begin an attempt at compliance are herculean,” the states wrote in court filings last week.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer has described the plan as modest, emphasizing that federal immigration authorities aren’t second-guessing states’ mail voter lists. He argued it was well within USPS’s authority to regulate how to handle sensitive mail and called the judge’s block “baseless.”
“Every day that the district court’s injunction remains in place, more ballots are being sent through the U.S. Mail without the benefits that the Rule provides for election integrity,” Sauer wrote in court filings last week.
The case has come to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket three times, each after U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a block stopping the president. She is an appointee of former President Obama who serves on the federal trial bench in Boston.
In the first round, which focused on Trump’s original executive order itself from the spring, the Supreme Court said the blue states suing likely had no right to sue over it.
In August, the Postal Service announced its final plan to implement the president’s directive for the midterms.
When Talwani temporary halted that, too, the Justice Department brought the case back to the high court. But before the justices ruled, Talwani replaced her block with a new, longer one. Then, the administration filed a third and latest plea at the Supreme Court.
As the Supreme Court keeps Talwani’s block in place, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee who serves in the nation’s capital, blocked Trump’s policy nationwide on Sunday in response to separate challenges. That ruling had not yet reached the justices.
