Supreme Court Allows Trump's Mail-In Voting Order to Move Forward, but Hurdles Remain

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump's executive order on mail-in voting to move forward, lifting a lower court's block and allowing the administration to begin implementing parts of the measure. The 6-3 decision, with the court's conservative majority in control and the three Democratic-appointed justices dissenting, comes less than 100 days before the November midterms.

The unsigned order, which did not rule on the overall legality of the executive order, stated that the order itself "is internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies. It neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch." The court also emphasized that "States are not required to use the Lists" created under the order, though they could lead to future prosecutions.

The executive order, numbered 14399 and dated March 31, directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of verified U.S. citizens of voting age and requires the U.S. Postal Service to implement new rules governing mail-in ballots. Under the order, USPS would be barred from delivering ballots that do not comply with new envelope design and barcode standards. It also directs the attorney general to prioritize prosecutions of state officials who allow noncitizens to vote.

Lower courts had blocked parts of the order in challenges brought by 23 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, in a June 25 order, blocked Section 2, which she said attempts "to intimidate local election officials," and Section 3, which she said could not stand because "no law enacted by Congress delegates authority to control mail-in voting to USPS." The First Circuit upheld that ruling on July 25, warning the order would "sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters."

The Supreme Court, however, held that the states' challenge was premature, arguing that any concrete injury would come only from later agency actions. "If the Postal Service's final rule harms the states, they may challenge that rule," the court wrote.

But the practical impact of Monday's decision remains uncertain. The court did not address a separate nationwide injunction against USPS implementation, issued by Judge Talwani on Aug. 11 in a case brought by voting rights groups, and that injunction apparently remains in effect. Moreover, USPS published its final rule implementing Section 3 on Friday, Aug. 21, before the Supreme Court acted, a timeline the court did not acknowledge in its order.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent joined by no other justice, accused the majority of missing "the Government's actual objective: to secure our imprimatur for its effort to foment chaos ahead of the November elections." She wrote that the ruling "needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections" and noted it is in tension with the Purcell principle, which cautions against altering election rules close to an election. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote separately that states face "a sufficiently concrete and imminent injury to satisfy Article III" and that the decision "does not address whether the President's attempts to interfere with States' administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful."

State leaders in Oregon, one of the states that sued, reacted strongly. Gov. Tina Kotek called the USPS directive "unconstitutional and an assault on our democracy" and said, "Keep your hands off our elections." Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield promised to sue over any unlawful attempts to limit vote-by-mail, and Secretary of State Tobias Read said Oregon's elections "are secure, accurate, fair and will proceed free from illegal federal interference."

The ruling allows the Department of Homeland Security to begin compiling eligible-voter lists, but the practical consequences may be limited. According to the Salem Statesman Journal, USPS's final rule requires states to submit lists of eligible voters 30 days before an election, instead of the executive order's 60-day deadline, and USPS said it "will not second-guess" the data and will review ballots for completeness, not accuracy.

Legal experts and critics point out that no federal law explicitly delegates authority to control mail-in voting to USPS, and Trump's legal argument has been described as thin. The Justice Department's supplemental brief defending the USPS rule was only three pages long, according to vox.com.

If the USPS rule ultimately takes effect, it could impose significant logistical burdens on states that rely heavily on mail-in voting. About 30% of the nation's voters, and 80% of Californians, cast their ballots by mail in 2024. Some states conduct elections almost entirely by mail and lack the infrastructure for fully in-person elections, raising concerns that compliance could be impossible before November. North Carolina is scheduled to begin mailing ballots at the end of next week, and federal law requires ballots for overseas and military voters to go out 45 days before the election.

Trump has long maintained, without evidence, that mail-in voting is "inherently corrupt" and prone to fraud, though voting experts say such fraud is exceedingly rare. The president himself has voted by mail as recently as this year, according to NPR.

As the legal battles continue, the immediate fate of the executive order remains unclear. The nationwide injunction against USPS is still in place, and Judge Talwani has signaled she might block the USPS rule again. If lower courts issue new rulings, the case could return to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, with time working against the administration as election deadlines approach.

For now, the Supreme Court has allowed the administration to take a step forward, but the full implementation of the order before November remains far from certain.