The Supreme Court on Monday denied a request from the Trump administration for relief from a universal injunction that blocks its mail-in ballot rules. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the court's decision.
In his dissent, which Thomas joined, Alito stated that the plaintiffs in the case relied on claims the court had previously deemed weak. He argued that the government had met the necessary criteria for a stay, calling the court's denial incorrect. "The Court incorrectly denies the Government’s application for a stay of a universal injunction that bars implementation of a final rule concerning election ballot mail," Alito wrote. "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.'"
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurrence, indicated that the rule could potentially be upheld in the future. However, he agreed with the majority that it was too close to the upcoming election cycle to implement the rules for the 2026 midterm elections. Kavanaugh noted that applying the rule would be "arbitrary and capricious" due to insufficient time for state and local election officials to reasonably implement it.
The mail-in ballot rules in question would have required federal ballot mail to be sent in envelopes with an election-mail logo, scannable by high-speed equipment, and bearing a unique barcode for each voter. State and local election officials would also have needed to submit envelope designs to the Postal Service for review and upload basic voter information to an online USPS portal. Mailings that did not comply would not have been accepted and would have been returned to election officials for correction.
The Postal Service possesses authority to regulate the collection, handling, transportation, and delivery of mail, a point acknowledged in both Kavanaugh's concurrence and Alito's dissent.