The U.S. Supreme Court has lifted uncertainty surrounding the midterm elections by rejecting President Donald Trump's bid to involve the U.S. Postal Service in determining who receives mail ballots. The decision allows election offices nationwide to proceed with sending out ballots as planned, without the need to comply with potentially disruptive new Postal Service rules.
The case originated from an executive order Trump signed in March. This plan would have required states to use a uniform envelope style for mailed ballots and to submit lists of eligible voters to an online portal developed by the administration. The Postal Service was to have the authority to refuse delivery of ballots to non-compliant states.
A whistleblower report indicated that these requirements could have resulted in millions of mail ballots not being sent, potentially disenfranchising voters. The legal challenges, swift rulings, and appeals created significant uncertainty for election officials, who agreed that implementing such substantial changes close to a general election would be chaotic and nearly impossible.
Mail voting is already underway in some states, and election officials had expressed concern that the late-stage dispute could confuse voters about what is permissible. Following the Supreme Court's decision, voting rights advocates and state election officials moved to reassure the public that elections would proceed as usual.
States where nearly all voters cast ballots by mail, including California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington, faced particular concerns. They would have had to adapt quickly without a robust network of polling places.
Lower courts had previously blocked the Trump administration from enforcing its rules. The Supreme Court declined to stay those decisions. While three justices—Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas—indicated varying degrees of willingness to allow Trump's plan in future elections, a majority of the court noted that the administration was "unlikely to succeed on the merits" in defending its plan. This language has been seen by voting rights experts as a positive sign for the future, suggesting these rules are unlikely to be implemented in any election. Election integrity experts noted that the executive order would have created a costly bureaucracy for states and disenfranchised voters, without enhancing election integrity.