In a major setback for US President Donald Trump, the US Supreme Court on Monday rejected his administration’s bid to impose new restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of the November midterm elections, allowing states to continue using their existing ballot procedures.The ruling capped a flurry of legal action just weeks before voters decide which party will control Congress. Several states have already begun sending mail ballots to voters, making a last-minute overhaul of the system particularly disruptive.The justices upheld a lower-court order blocking new requirements that the Trump administration had sought to impose through the US Postal Service (USPS). However, the decision may not be the final word on the issue, with conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicating that he could potentially side with the administration as the broader legal challenge continues.
Trump’s mail ballot push hits courts
Trump signed an executive order in March directing the USPS to introduce new requirements for election-related mail, including unique barcodes on ballot envelopes and the creation of an online portal containing information about voters receiving mail ballots.The administration argued that the measures were necessary to protect election integrity and combat fraud. Trump has repeatedly criticised mail voting and has claimed, without evidence, that it can enable non-citizens to vote and is vulnerable to fraud.Twenty-three states and Washington DC challenged the order, arguing that it infringed on their constitutional authority to administer elections. They also warned that implementing the changes so close to the midterms could disrupt established voting systems and disenfranchise voters.Boston-based federal Judge Indira Talwani blocked the order on September 4, ruling that its implementation ahead of the November election could cause significant disruption. A US appeals court last week declined to suspend her order, while another federal judge, Carl Nichols, also ruled against Trump’s plan on Sunday.Kavanaugh agreed that the new rules should not take effect for the 2026 elections. However, he suggested there was “at least a fair prospect” that the Postal Service could ultimately have the statutory authority to introduce them, while describing their application this year as potentially “arbitrary and capricious”.Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the Postal Service has broad authority to regulate mail and that the challenge to Trump’s order was unlikely to succeed ultimately.States warn of election disruptionElection officials had warned that there was not enough time to implement a nationwide overhaul before the midterms. Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin had already begun sending mail ballots while Trump’s proposed system remained inactive.The administration’s plan would have required states to use a uniform envelope format and submit voter information through an online portal, with the USPS potentially refusing to deliver ballots from states that failed to comply.
About The Author
