The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with parts of the president’s executive order on mail-in voting, ruling Monday that a lower court should not have blocked them.
The unsigned decision wipes out the lower court ruling from Massachusetts that halted, in nearly half of all states and the District of Columbia, two parts of an executive order from March that directed the U.S. Postal Service to create mail ballot rules and the Department of Homeland Security to compile a national database of eligible voters.
The Supreme Court did not decide whether the executive order ultimately is lawful. But the justices set up continued legal clashes over proposed rules to implement the executive order, as states prepare for the midterm elections in November.
Attorneys for the administration had argued in Supreme Court filings that an injunction against the policies was “premature” because the agencies have not yet implemented the executive order, which gave them “substantial discretion” to do so.
Trending
The states challenging the executive order contended there would be “extraordinary consequences” if the Trump administration was allowed to overhaul mail-in voting rules so close to the election.
The Supreme Court opinion Monday says that the federal judge should not have blocked a forthcoming DHS rule because states could be harmed by actions the department might take.
“Emphasis on might,” the decision states.
And the opinion says that the USPS is still in the process of proposing a rule that might bind the states in the future.
“Federal courts review final rules, not proposed rules—and certainly not antecedent internal directives to propose a rule,” the opinion states. “If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the States, they may challenge that rule.”
That portion of the opinion states that the USPS rule “is not a proposed rule, let alone a final rule.” But late Friday, the USPS finalized a rule about ballots that would go into effect as early as Wednesday if the Supreme Court allows it.
That highlights a central part of the decision: The Supreme Court emphasized that Monday’s ruling will not be the last action on the implementation of the executive order.
“The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful,” the decision states. “On that score, time will tell.”
A dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, underscored that point, and contends the states face harms that would allow a judge to step in at this point.
“Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful. Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives,” Sotomayor wrote. “Instead, today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also dissented from the decision.
Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA Law School who focuses on election law, wrote in a blog post that Monday’s decision postpones any kind of ruling on the government’s actions by “a week or two, when we will be even closer to the election and it will be impossible for states to comply with some of the rules that will come out.”
And the Supreme Court decision leaves in place for now another lower court ruling from Massachusetts that blocked the USPS part of the executive order nationwide, in an order that pointed out millions of citizens who rely on mail voting require clarity as to how or whether they will vote in November.
Hasen wrote he expects the lower court judge will now amend that injunction “and issue a new injunction that will stop USPS from implementing its now final rule. And that too may end up at the Supreme Court within a week.”
In the meantime, battleground states are getting set to send out mail ballots soon, including North Carolina on Sept. 4 and Wisconsin on Sept. 17.
Jason Tyson, a spokesperson for North Carolina’s board of elections, said he’d rather not get into hypotheticals about what might happen with the USPS and courts.
“The county boards of elections plan to move forward with sending out absentee ballots to North Carolina voters who have requested them for this election, starting September 4,” Tyson said. “Of course, we will do our best to comply with any court decisions, as we always do.”
Author
