★ In this story 02
When you stick a letter in the mail, you might not think much of it. It goes in the box, a carrier picks it up, then it gets delivered to whomever you addressed it to. But there are many moving parts in the process of delivering the mail – and a lot of rules the United States Postal Service, or USPS, must follow. So what happens when someone drops a mail-in ballot in the box? That was the question debated in multiple courts over the last several months – a question finally answered by the US Supreme Court on Sept. 14.
To make a long story short, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Postal Service to deliver a mail-in ballot only if the recipient has been verified as legally eligible to vote. It was challenged by the states that didn’t want to comply, and, ultimately, they won. But there’s a lot more to it than that brief summary.
Mail-In Ballot Rules in Question
On March 31, President Trump issued his executive order instructing the Department of Homeland Security and the USPS to develop new procedures for mail-in ballots to make them more secure. Later, a coalition of about two dozen state attorneys general and voting rights organizations sued in federal court, arguing the order was trying to take over the states’ constitutional authority to manage elections. In June, US District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston, MA, issued an injunction, blocking federal agencies from enforcing the order.
But the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to overturn that lower court ruling in August because the Postal Service had not yet released a rule, meaning the plaintiffs sued before there was legally anything to sue over. Then, in late August, USPS released its new mail-in ballot rule, and a new suit was filed to challenge it.
So what is the rule? State election officials would have to upload lists of all voters receiving mail-in ballots into a new federal online portal. The Postal Service then would refuse any ballots not verified through that federal database. Finally, ballots would require special envelope designs and unique tracking barcodes, and batches would be inspected for errors.
Judge Talwani ruled against the president yet again. On Aug. 27, she issued a temporary restraining order for 14 days to freeze enforcement. Following a hearing in early September, she ended her own restraining order and issued an injunction blocking the rule for good.
The Final Rulings and the ‘Impossible and Unconstitutional’ Pushback
The arguments against the new rule had two parts: logistics and legality.
Logistically, the states that issued the challenge warned that there simply wasn’t enough time to make the new rule work. Election Day is Nov. 3 – but early voting, including by mail-in ballot, begins much earlier. In fact, some states have already mailed out their ballots. They argued that it was basically impossible to comply with the new rule quickly enough to be in time for the election. What’s worse, they pointed out that trying to rush and build a new, untested federal database and redesign millions of ballots could result in errors or breakdowns in the system that might delay or even disqualify otherwise valid ballots.
On the constitutional side, they argued that the White House was overstepping. Under Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution, the states have the responsibility to set the times, places, and manner of holding elections.
Judge Talwani agreed, hence her rulings. The Supreme Court on Sept. 14 rejected the Trump administration’s emergency appeal and left the injunction in place. In the decision, the majority noted that the government was unlikely to win the case on the merits, meaning most of the justices likely agreed with Judge Talwani and the plaintiffs. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing the US government probably was within its rights to regulate the ballots, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurrence, agreeing with the majority but citing mostly the severe disruption because of the timeline.
So now, just weeks before Election Day and much closer to the time many people will be voting, the president’s proposed mail-in ballot rule is dead in the water. But that doesn’t mean the rule has been deemed unconstitutional. That question is still being debated in the lower courts – and it may well be that the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on it and rule on the merits of the case. But for now, the Postal Service can’t enforce this new rule until the case is resolved – and that isn’t going to happen soon enough to matter for the 2026 election.
4 Questions
The story, in brief
What mail-in ballot rule did the USPS release after President Trump's order?
The new USPS rule would require state election officials to upload lists of voters receiving mail-in ballots into a new federal online portal. The Postal Service would refuse ballots not verified through that database. Ballots also would need special envelope designs, unique tracking barcodes, and batch inspections for errors.
Why did states challenge President Trump's USPS mail-in ballot rule?
The challengers said the rule was both unworkable and unconstitutional. They argued there was not enough time before voting began to build a new federal database and redesign millions of ballots without risking errors, delays, or disqualification of valid ballots. They also said states, not the White House, have constitutional authority over election procedures.
What did the Supreme Court decide about the USPS mail-in ballot rule on Sept. 14?
The Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's emergency appeal and left Judge Indira Talwani's injunction in place. That means the Postal Service cannot enforce the new mail-in ballot rule for now. The majority said the government was unlikely to win the case on the merits, while two justices dissented and Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed mainly because of the timeline disruption.
What happens next in the fight over President Trump's mail-in ballot rule?
The proposed rule is effectively blocked for the upcoming election period because the injunction remains in place. However, the courts have not finally decided whether the rule is unconstitutional. That issue is still being argued in lower courts, and the Supreme Court may later have to rule on the merits.
