The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a plan by President Donald Trump that would have restricted mail-in voting ahead of the midterm elections, dealing a setback to the White House. The justices upheld a federal judge's order that temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from implementing new requirements for postal ballots.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative justice, agreed with the ruling but noted that he might later rule in Trump's favor as litigation continues. Trump had argued that the new rules were necessary to combat electoral fraud and had signed an executive order in March directing the USPS to deliver ballots only to voters listed as citizens.
Legal challenges argued that Trump's directive violated states' constitutional rights to manage their own elections. In his opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote that while there was "at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority," applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be "arbitrary and capricious."
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, also conservatives, dissented. They described the challenge to Trump's order as a "Hail Mary pass" unlikely to succeed, stating that "The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail."
The White House had not immediately commented on the decision. In the general election two years prior, approximately 30% of voters, primarily Democrats, cast ballots by mail. Since returning to the White House, Trump has consistently sought to limit mail-in voting, despite voting by mail himself. He has repeatedly claimed the method allows non-citizens to vote and is prone to fraud.
Trump's March executive order directed the USPS to introduce unique barcodes on mail ballot envelopes and required state and local election officials to provide voter information to an online portal for those receiving mail ballots. Twenty-three states and Washington D.C. filed lawsuits to block the order. The postal workers' union also indicated that clerks could not be trained in time for the election.
The Trump administration maintained that the new USPS rules were constitutional, arguing that states "cannot choose to use the federal mails to carry out their elections but then insist that their election-related mail is somehow exempt from the Postal Service's rule-making authority, conferred by Congress."
Earlier actions had also blocked Trump's order. In September, Boston-based Judge Indira Talwani issued an injunction, ruling that implementing the measures close to the November elections could disenfranchise voters. The following week, a U.S. appeals court declined to put Judge Talwani's order on hold. More recently, on Sunday, another federal judge, Judge Carl Nichols, ruled against Trump's order. Some states have already begun distributing mail-in ballots in preparation for the midterm elections, which will determine which party controls Congress.
This is not the first time Trump has faced a Supreme Court setback regarding postal ballots. In June, the justices ruled that states may count ballots postmarked by Election Day, rejecting the Trump administration's attempt to prevent votes from being tallied if received after polls closed. Trump has previously made unsubstantiated claims of widespread electoral fraud influencing the 2020 election outcome.