{"id":40038,"date":"2026-08-25T11:18:54","date_gmt":"2026-08-25T16:18:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/?p=40038"},"modified":"2026-08-25T11:27:49","modified_gmt":"2026-08-25T16:27:49","slug":"supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-trump-mail-voting-order-in-advance-of-midterms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/2026\/08\/25\/supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-trump-mail-voting-order-in-advance-of-midterms\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court clears the way for Trump mail voting order in advance of midterms"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is great news – PEN<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

SCOTUS BLOG – 8\/24\/26<\/p>\n

Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting – By Amy Howe<\/h1>\n

The Supreme Court on Monday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, that imposes restrictions on mail-in voting. The court paused an injunction by a federal judge in Boston that had barred the federal government from applying provisions of that executive order in the November elections to 23 states (along with the District of Columbia) challenging their legality.<\/p>\n

A separate ruling by the same judge, in a case filed by a different set of plaintiffs, temporarily prohibits the U.S. Postal Service from implementing one provision of the executive order anywhere in the United States. That ruling remains in effect, at least for now.<\/p>\n

In its 10-page, unsigned opinion, the majority said that it was too soon for courts to consider the states\u2019 challenge because the order has not yet been carried out \u2013 which means that the states have not suffered the kind of injury that allows their lawsuit to move forward.<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s three Democratic appointees dissented. In a 23-page opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the majority of \u201c[t]aking its eye off the ball\u201d and thus \u201cmiss[ing] the Government\u2019s actual objective: to secure our imprimatur for its effort to foment chaos ahead of the November elections.\u201d<\/p>\n

President Donald Trump signed the executive order at the center of the dispute in March. As it came to the court in late July, the focus of the case was on three different provisions of the order. The first instructs the Department of Homeland Security to create lists of the adult U.S. citizens in each state and to send those lists to states at least 60 days before a federal election. The second provision commands the U.S. attorney general to \u201cprioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of State and local officials \u2026 who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election.\u201d And the third provision requires states to give the U.S. Postal Service a list of voters to whom the states intend to send mail ballots, and it prohibits the USPS from mailing ballots to voters who are not on the lists of \u201cenrolled\u201d voters that the USPS will create.<\/p>\n

A group of 23 states, led by California, and the District of Columbia challenged the government\u2019s implementation of the order in a federal court in Massachusetts. They argued that the executive order conflicts with provisions in the Constitution that give states the power to determine voter eligibility and to set the \u201cTimes, Places, and Manner\u201d of holding congressional elections.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that she could not review the challengers\u2019 claims as they applied to federal elections scheduled after Nov. 3, 2026, because those claims were not yet \u201cripe\u201d \u2013 that is, ready for review. However, she said, she could review the challengers\u2019 claims with regard to the upcoming midterm elections because the order \u201ccreated a \u2018direct and immediate dilemma\u2019\u201d for them, and she prohibited the federal government from implementing the challenged restrictions on or before Nov. 3, 2026, in the District of Columbia and the 23 states.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to pause Talwani\u2019s order while the litigation continued. It stressed that neither the federal government nor 12 states, led by Alabama, that had joined the case on the Trump administration\u2019s side had argued that the executive order was legal. That court also rejected the contention that the challengers did not have a right to sue or that the case was not yet ripe. The consequences of the executive order, the court of appeals countered, give states \u201cno practical choice but to respond to the EO now.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court seeking relief on July 27. Calling Talwani\u2019s order \u201cextraordinary,\u201d U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer renewed his argument that the challengers\u2019 claims are not yet ripe for review because the agencies haven\u2019t yet decided how they will implement the order. He also contended that unless Talwani\u2019s order is paused, the government will be permanently harmed \u2013 one factor that courts consider in deciding whether to grant temporary relief \u2013 because it \u201cblocks the government\u2019s ability to finalize and implement the President\u2019s proposed policies to promote election integrity for the upcoming federal elections in November.\u201d Moreover, he added, \u201cevery day that it remains in place irreparably harms the government, as the start of mail-in and absentee voting in some States is now just one month away.\u201d<\/p>\n

Alabama and the other 11 states supporting the Trump administration pointed to two recent rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit involving the same executive order \u2013 one of which, they said, “held that it is too early to challenge the EO,” and the other of which allowed the executive order to be reinstated “on th[at] same basis.”<\/p>\n

The challengers countered on Aug. 3 that putting Talwani\u2019s injunction on hold \u201cwould allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program that would, among other things, give the U.S. Postal Service far-reaching new powers and responsibilities.\u201d They also emphasized that the 1st Circuit had agreed with them that \u201c\u2018the specificity of the EO\u2019s stated timelines and the inescapable legal requirements and impending deadlines that States currently face in facilitating mail-in and absentee balloting for immediately upcoming elections together establish\u2019\u201d the kind of \u201c\u2018concrete injury\u2019\u201d that allows them to sue.<\/p>\n

Three weeks later, the Trump administration once again urged the justices to step in, this time citing the imminent publication of a new U.S. Postal Service rule that, Sauer said, \u201cimposes only modest requirements for preparation and envelope design for federal ballot mail\u201d \u2013 such as requiring mail-in ballots \u201cto be mailed in envelopes that include the official Election Mail logo, are automation compatible, and use unique barcodes that denote the item\u2019s status as federal ballot mail and its delivery point ZIP code.\u201d If the justices do not pause Talwani\u2019s order, Sauer told them, the Postal Service \u201ccannot implement the rule\u201d for the upcoming November elections.<\/p>\n

On Monday afternoon the court granted the government\u2019s request. In its unsigned opinion, the majority wrote that the first provision of the order, instructing the DHS secretary to create state citizenship lists, is simply \u201can internal directive from the President to a subordinate.\u201d Because it doesn\u2019t require states to do anything, the majority reasoned, they are not injured by the provision \u2013 and therefore cannot challenge it. The possibility that the DHS secretary could implement the provision before November, and that the states could be harmed by that implementation, the majority stressed, is not enough to give the states a right to sue.<\/p>\n

The second provision of the order does not harm the states, the majority continued, because it merely \u201cdirects the Attorney General to \u2018prioritize\u2019 the investigation and prosecution of those who violate existing federal laws by issuing ballots to ineligible voters.\u201d Such an instruction, the court said, lies squarely within the powers that the Constitution gives the president.<\/p>\n

And the third and final provision, the majority said, \u201corders the Postal Service to initiate the process of proposing a rule that might bind the States in the future.\u201d When the states filed their lawsuit \u2013 which, the majority wrote, is the relevant time for determining whether the states had a right to sue \u2013 the order was \u201cnot a proposed rule, let alone a final rule.\u201d Here too, the majority indicated, Talwani\u2019s \u201cconclusion that this internal directive inflicts\u201d the kind of injury that would allow the states to sue \u201cnecessarily rests on an \u2018attenuated chain of inferences.\u2019\u201d \u201cIf the Postal Service\u2019s final rule harms the States,\u201d the majority noted, \u201cthey may challenge that rule.\u201d<\/p>\n

The majority also found that the government would suffer irreparable harm if Talwani\u2019s order is not paused now. Even if that ruling were eventually reversed, the majority emphasized, it \u201cwould come too late for the 2026 midterms.\u201d By contrast, the majority said, the states would not be harmed from putting Talwani\u2019s order on hold, because the executive order doesn\u2019t require them to do anything.<\/p>\n

In a four-page opinion joined by Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that she would have left Talwani\u2019s order in place. She also stressed that the majority\u2019s ruling \u201cdoes not address whether the President\u2019s attempts to interfere with States\u2019 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\u2019s directives. Instead,\u201d she concluded, \u201ctoday\u2019s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sotomayor also suggested that the government was trying to \u201chave it both ways\u201d: On one hand, she observed, the majority \u201csays it was speculative to think there would be a final rule at all when this suit was filed, seemingly accepting the Government\u2019s representation that it may not actually implement the Executive Order.\u201d But on the other hand, she wrote, the government \u201cinsists that it seeks to implement the Executive Order immediately for purposes of establishing irreparable harm.\u201d<\/p>\n

Jackson acknowledged that the majority had \u201cnot foreclosed States from challenging this blatantly unconstitutional Order.\u201d But she characterized the majority\u2019s order as another chapter \u201cin the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges.\u201d Although the court has for two decades made clear \u201cthat even valid election-related legal claims can come too late,\u201d she argued, the majority now indicates \u201cthat such claims can also come too early.\u201d This is particularly problematic, she suggested, when \u201cthe Government (which controls the timing of proposed and final rules) can easily game the system.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

TRUMP GETS HUGE WIN AT SUPREME COURT FOR 2026 MAIL IN BALLOTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

NBC NEWS -WASHINGTON \u2014 The Supreme Court handed an initial win to the Trump administration Monday in its effort to implement an executive order aimed at limiting who can receive mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.<\/p>\n

At issue are provisions that seek to create a federal list of eligible voters and order the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to those people.<\/p>\n

The justices, divided 6-3 along ideological lines with conservatives in the majority, lifted an injunction a Massachusetts-based judge imposed in June that prevented key aspects of the executive order from going into effect this year in California and 22 other states that had challenged it.<\/p>\n

The court also granted a similar application filed by Alabama and 11 other states.<\/p>\n

The White House praised the court\u2019s ruling, calling the executive order\u2019s provisions \u201ccommonsense measures.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis Administration will continue to lawfully enact the agenda President Trump was elected on \u2014 which includes the safety and security of our elections,\u201d White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

ABC 7\/NY: 8\/25\/26\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Democrats in 23 states and the District of Columbia sued to block the order.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to move ahead with his executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much his administration can implement before the fast-approaching midterm elections.<\/p>\n

The decision appears to leave room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump’s order. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes with some states beginning to send mail ballots to voters in just a few weeks.<\/p>\n

Mail balloting has long been a favorite target for Trump, who has claimed that it breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and his own use of the voting method.<\/p>\n

The case could be one of multiple voting-related challenges before the justices. The Justice Department had filed an emergency appeal asking the high court to allow work on implementing the changes before the midterms.<\/p>\n

Trump’s executive order, signed in March, calls on his administration to create lists of eligible voters and orders the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

Justice Department urges judge to allow USPS to track mail ballots<\/strong><\/p>\n

USA Today 8\/25\/26 – The Justice Department urged a judge to allow the U.S. Postal Service to impose new restrictions on mail-in voting, after the Supreme Court lifted one of her two blocks against the policy.<\/p>\n

But even if the blocks in both cases are lifted, opponents of the policy are expected to continue fighting in court, to prevent the restrictions from being placed on the Nov. 3 election.<\/p>\n

The court battle came after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March directing agencies to compile a list of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state and to use federal data to help state election officials verify which voters are eligible.<\/p>\n

The Postal Service proposed that states provide the individual barcodes associated with every mail-in ballot, to check them as they are districted to help prevent fraud. A group of 23 states challenged the policy in one lawsuit and the League of Women Voters filed a similar lawsuit that argued the Postal Service has no role in the administration of elections. Read more<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Of course, the NALC does not agree with this decision – what do you expect from the NALC:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\n

NALC statement on Supreme Court ruling on mail-in ballots<\/h2>\n

<\/small><\/div>\n

NALC President Brian L. Renfroe released the following statement:<\/em><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/em><\/div>\n
Yesterday evening\u2019s Supreme Court ruling was the latest development in a broader effort to diminish the credibility of mail-in voting, undermine the dedicated work of the nation\u2019s 200,000 active city letter carriers, and suppress Americans\u2019 access to the ballot.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
States administer elections. Neither the executive branch nor the Postal Service has the authority to regulate elections, rewrite election laws, or determine who is eligible to vote by mail. The administration\u2019s executive order gives the USPS new responsibilities far outside its standard operations and constitutionally mandated authority.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Instances of mail-in voter fraud are exceedingly rare, and any insinuation that voting by mail is not safe and secure is severely misguided. Letter carriers have securely delivered ballots for decades, and there is no evidence that the existing system requires substantial changes.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
We help our democracy work by delivering ballots to tens of millions of Americans so that they can participate in our elections. We deliver those ballots with the same reliability and security with which we deliver more than 360 million pieces of mail and packages every day across the country. Mail-in voting makes elections accessible for seniors, rural residents, working families, military personnel, and Americans with disabilities.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
While this process continues to play out in the courts, letter carriers will continue doing what we do best: delivering for Americans. We are proud of our role and responsibility, and we\u00a0<\/span>are prepared to get the job done once again this election season.<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is great news – PEN SCOTUS BLOG – 8\/24\/26 Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting – By Amy Howe The Supreme Court on Monday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump earlier this […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":39213,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-breaking","last_archivepost"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40038","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40038"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40038\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40041,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40038\/revisions\/40041"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/39213"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}