{"id":40184,"date":"2026-09-15T11:19:33","date_gmt":"2026-09-15T16:19:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/?p=40184"},"modified":"2026-09-15T11:34:00","modified_gmt":"2026-09-15T16:34:00","slug":"supreme-courts-ruling-on-mail-voting-restrictions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/2026\/09\/15\/supreme-courts-ruling-on-mail-voting-restrictions\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court\u2019s Ruling on Mail Voting Restrictions"},"content":{"rendered":"

PEN – 9\/15\/26 – Monday the Supreme Court declined to allow USPS to carry out parts of a new rule on mail-in voting. We believe this is a loss for the citizens of this nation. Their ruling is below – below that is President Trumps statement on this ruling.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 1
\nKAVANAUGH, J., concurring
\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
\nNo. 26A305
\nUNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL. v.
\nCALIFORNIA, ET AL.
\nON APPLICATION FOR STAY
\n[September 14, 2026]
\nThe application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON
\nand by her referred to the Court is denied. The Government
\nis unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the
\nDistrict Court\u2019s preliminary injunction. And the equitable
\nfactors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this
\nCourt do not favor a stay.<\/p>\n

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.<\/p>\n

In my view, based on the briefing the Court has received
\nat this interim stage, there is at least a fair prospect that
\nthe final rule falls within the Postal Service\u2019s statutory
\nauthority. See 39 U. S. C. \u00a7401(2). But applying the rule
\nin the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in
\nviolation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state
\nand local election officials do not have sufficient time to
\nreasonably implement the rule before the elections. See 39
\nU. S. C. \u00a73001(m); 5 U. S. C. \u00a7706(2)(A). For that reason, I
\nconcur in the denial of the application for stay.<\/p>\n

Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 1
\nALITO, J., dissenting
\nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
\nNo. 26A305
\nUNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL. v.
\nCALIFORNIA, ET AL.
\nON APPLICATION FOR STAY
\n[September 14, 2026]
\nJUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting from the denial of application for stay.<\/p>\n

The Court incorrectly denies the Government\u2019s application for a stay of a universal injunction that bars implementation of a final rule concerning election ballot mail. Some
\nof the plaintiffs lack standing, while the remainder are pursuing a claim that this Court has recently called a \u201c\u2018Hail
\nMary pass\u2019\u201d that \u201c\u2018rarely succeeds.\u2019\u201d NRC v. Texas, 605
\nU. S. 665, 681\u2013682 (2025). The Government has made the
\nshowings necessary for a stay, so I respectfully dissent.
\nI
\nSome five months ago, the President issued an \u201cinternal
\ndirective\u201d to \u201chis subordinates mandating,\u201d among other
\nthings, that the United States Postal Service \u201c\u2018initiate a
\nproposed rulemaking\u2019\u201d regarding election ballot mail.
\nTrump v. California, 609 U. S. ___, ___ (2026) (per curiam)
\n(slip op., at 2). Just days after the President\u2019s directive issued, numerous organizations and a group of States led by
\nCalifornia sued in the District of Massachusetts. The District Court entered a series of injunctions blocking implementation of the directive. This Court eventually stayed
\none of the injunctions because the District Court likely
\nlacked jurisdiction because the suit was premature. Id., at
\n___, ___\u2013___ (slip op., at 1, 3\u20138).<\/p>\n

2 POSTAL SERVICE v. CALIFORNIA
\nALITO, J., dissenting
\nIn late August, the Postal Service promulgated a final
\nrule pursuant to the President\u2019s directive. Ballot Mail for
\nFederal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 54966 (2026). The rule requires federal ballot mail to be sent in envelopes with three
\nspecial features: an election-mail logo, the ability to be
\nscanned using high-speed processing equipment, and a specialized barcode unique to each voter. Id., at 54990\u201354991.
\nStates must design envelopes that adhere to these requirements and submit the designs to the Postal Service for review. Ibid. Finally, States must upload basic information
\nabout the voter to a Postal Service portal. Id., at 54991.
\nUnder the rule, the Postal Service must review mail sent
\nfrom States to voters for compliance with these requirements. Ibid. Mailings that fail to comply \u201cwill not be accepted and will be returned to the\u201d State, which can then
\nresubmit the mail after correcting errors. Ibid.
\nWithin days of the final rule\u2019s issuance, the District Court
\nentered a temporary restraining order that it later converted to a nationwide preliminary injunction stopping the
\nrule from taking effect. The Government applied to this
\nCourt for a stay.
\nII
\nTo obtain a stay, the applicant must make a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable
\nharm. In close cases, we also consider the balance of the
\nequities. See Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190
\n(2010) (per curiam).
\nA
\nThe Government is likely to succeed on the merits of its
\nappeal.
\nTo begin, the District Court issued a nationwide injunction based on claims asserted by several plaintiff organizations that likely lack standing. These organizations first
\nclaim a direct organizational injury because the rule<\/p>\n

Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 3
\nALITO, J., dissenting
\nsupposedly thwarts their ability to educate members about
\nvoting. Yet this theory of injury is based on \u201c\u2018a setback to
\nthe organization\u2019s abstract social interests\u2019\u201d and an effort
\nto \u201cspend its way into standing simply by expending money
\nto gather information and advocate against the defendant\u2019s
\naction[s].\u201d FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602
\nU. S. 367, 394 (2024). The organizations also assert associational standing based on injuries to unnamed members
\nwho never filed declarations themselves. Such cryptic filings cannot be used to show standing. We have \u201crequired
\nplaintiff-organizations to make specific allegations establishing that at least one identified member had suffered or
\nwould suffer harm\u201d and to additionally meet the \u201crequirement of naming the affected members.\u201d Summers v. Earth
\nIsland Institute, 555 U. S. 488, 498\u2013499 (2009).
\nAs for the plaintiff States, their claims are unlikely to
\nsucceed. They claim the rule violates the Elections Clause.
\nU. S. Const., Art. I, \u00a74, cl. 1. This claim, however, collapses
\ninto an inquiry about whether the Postal Service has statutory authority to promulgate the rule. Even assuming the
\nrule here is a regulation of elections, Congress may create
\nsuch rules under the Elections Clause. And, by statute, it
\nmay authorize the Postal Service to issue such rules. Because litigants cannot convert claims that a federal entity
\nhas \u201cacted in excess of [its] statutory authority\u201d into constitutional claims, see Dalton v. Specter, 511 U. S. 462, 472\u2013
\n474 (1994), the crux of the dispute is whether the Postal
\nService has statutory authority to issue the rule.
\nTo assert a claim that an agency exceeded its statutory
\nauthority, the challenger needs a cause of action, which is
\ntypically provided by the Administrative Procedure Act.
\n5 U. S. C. \u00a7\u00a7702, 704. However, Congress broadly exempted \u201cthe exercise of the powers of the Postal Service\u201d
\nfrom review under the APA. 39 U. S. C. \u00a7410(a); see also
\nMittleman v. Postal Regulatory Comm\u2019n, 757 F. 3d 300, 305
\n(CADC 2014). It also channeled many claims against the<\/p>\n

4 POSTAL SERVICE v. CALIFORNIA
\nALITO, J., dissenting
\nPostal Service to initial review before the Postal Regulatory
\nCommission followed by review in the United States Court
\nof Appeals for the District of Columbia. See 39 U. S. C.
\n\u00a7\u00a73662\u20133663. These provisions tightly constrain APA review of Postal Service actions.
\nUnsurprisingly, the statutory claim here is not subject to
\nAPA review. It is a challenge to the scope of the Postal Service\u2019s general rulemaking authority and therefore exempt
\nfrom the APA. \u00a7410(a).*
\nSince the plaintiff States cannot proceed under the APA,
\nthey must instead invoke an equitable cause of action
\nknown as an ultra vires claim. Because such claims rely on
\na judicially-implied cause of action and may be used to \u201cendrun\u201d statutes created by Congress that restrict judicial review, this Court\u2019s \u201ccases have strictly limited nonstatutory
\nultra vires review\u201d to a narrow set of circumstances. NRC
\nv. Texas, 605 U. S., at 681. Crucially, the relevant agency
\naction must be \u201centirely in \u2018excess of [the agency\u2019s] delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition\u2019 in a
\nstatute.\u201d Ibid. (emphasis deleted). Such a claim is thus
\n\u201c\u2018essentially a Hail Mary pass\u2019\u201d that \u201c\u2018rarely succeeds.\u2019\u201d
\nId., at 681\u2013682; see also Federal Express Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 39 F. 4th 756, 764 (CADC 2022) (\u201cultra
\nvires claims are confined to \u2018extreme\u2019 agency error where
\nthe agency has \u2018stepped so plainly beyond the bounds of [its
\nstatutory authority], or acted so clearly in defiance of it, as
\nto warrant the immediate intervention of an equity court\u2019\u201d).
\nThat Hail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here. The Postal Service has broad authority to
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014
\n*The claim is arguably channeled to the Postal Regulatory Commission for review in the first instance. The lower courts have not addressed
\nthat issue despite its jurisdictional implications. See Axon Enterprises,
\nInc. v. FTC, 598 U. S. 175, 185 (2023); Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better
\nEnvironment, 523 U. S. 83, 94 (1998). And because the Government is
\nlikely to succeed for another reason, resolution of that question is not
\nnecessary<\/p>\n

Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 5
\nALITO, J., dissenting
\nregulate the mail. It holds the \u201cgeneral powers\u201d to \u201cadopt,
\namend, and repeal such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this title, as may be necessary in the execution
\nof its functions under this title and such other functions as
\nmay be assigned to [it] under any provisions of law outside
\nof this title.\u201d 39 U. S. C. \u00a7401(2). Through this provision,
\nCongress has \u201cbroadly empowered [the Postal Service] to
\nadopt rules and regulations.\u201d Postal Service v. Council of
\nGreenburgh Civic Assns., 453 U. S. 114, 123 (1981). The
\nPostal Service also possesses the power \u201cto provide for the
\ncollection, handling, transportation, delivery, forwarding,
\nreturning, and holding of mail, and for the disposition of
\nundeliverable mail.\u201d 39 U. S. C. \u00a7404(a)(1).
\nIf the question of the Postal Service\u2019s power were before
\nus in something other than the context of an ultra vires
\nclaim, the Government\u2019s argument would present a difficult
\nquestion. But here the question is different. In order to
\nassert an ultra vires claim, the plaintiffs must show that
\nthe challenged regulation of envelopes here is \u201centirely \u2018in
\nexcess\u2019\u201d of the power to govern collecting, handling, transporting, delivering, forwarding, and returning of mail.
\nNRC v. Texas, 605 U. S., at 681. The same is true of the
\nrequirement to pass along information about each recipient
\nof ballot mail. At the very least, the Postal Service did not
\nact \u201c\u2018contrary to a specific prohibition\u2019\u201d in enacting the rule.
\nIbid. (emphasis deleted).
\nThe plaintiff States resist these conclusions by invoking
\na highly technical provision tucked away in a corner of the
\nPostal Reorganization Act of 1970. It concerns \u201cnonmailable matter,\u201d a hodgepodge of items ranging from those that
\nexceed the size and weight limits for certain classes of mail
\nto fragrance-advertising samples. See 39 U. S. C. \u00a73001.
\nUnder this provision, \u201cproceedings concerning the mailability of matter under [chapter 30 of title 39] and chapters 71
\nand 83 of title 17 shall be conducted in accordance with [the
\nAPA].\u201d \u00a73001(m). But a lawsuit claiming the Postal Service<\/p>\n

6 POSTAL SERVICE v. CALIFORNIA
\nALITO, J., dissenting
\nexceeded its authority under chapter 4 of title 39, see
\n\u00a7401(2), is not a proceeding concerning the mailability of
\nmatter under chapter 30 of title 39. Such a broad reading
\nis difficult to square with Congress\u2019 decision to exempt the
\nPostal Service from APA review except in narrow instances.
\n\u00a7\u00a7410(a), 3662\u20133663.
\nIt is also not clear that the Postal Service created a new
\nclass of nonmailable matter, let alone that it is specifically
\nprohibited from doing so. NRC v. Texas, 605 U. S., at 681.
\nThe rule\u2019s requirements appear more similar to other
\nthreshold requirements for mailing\u2014such as the basic requirement to list the recipient\u2019s address on one side of the
\npackage or stamping requirements\u2014that do not render
\nnoncompliant mail \u201cnonmailable material.\u201d Reading the
\nnonmailable material provisions to prohibit the rule\u2019s conditions on mailing would allow niche provisions to swallow
\nthe Postal Service\u2019s otherwise broad power to regulate the
\ndelivery of mail.
\nIn sum, the plaintiff States\u2019 statutory claim is based on a
\ncontestable reading of a broadly drawn statute empowering
\nthe Postal Service to regulate the mail. Given that the
\nplaintiff States advance an ultra vires claim, the Government must show only that the agency\u2019s interpretation of the
\nstatute is not \u201c\u2018patently a misconstruction.\u2019\u201d Changji
\nEsquel Textile Co. v. Raimondo, 40 F. 4th 716, 722 (CADC
\n2022). I express no view on whether the Government would
\nbe likely to succeed on de novo review of the Postal Service\u2019s
\npowers. But for now, the Government has satisfied its burden of making a strong showing that the plaintiff States\u2019
\nultra vires claim is not likely to succeed.
\nB
\nThe remaining equitable factors favor a stay as well. The
\nGovernment will suffer irreparable harm absent relief.
\n\u201cBecause reversal of the District Court\u2019s [injunction] would
\ncome too late for the 2026 midterms, the District Court\u2019s<\/p>\n

Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ (2026) 7
\nALITO, J., dissenting
\nerrors deal a serious setback to the Executive\u2019s goals while
\nthis litigation unfolds.\u201d Trump v. California, 609 U. S., at
\n___, (slip op., at 9) (internal quotation marks omitted).
\nAs for the equities, the Government has a strong interest
\nin enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also \u201cenhance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail\u201d in order to better
\ndetect election fraud. 91 Fed. Reg. 54972. On the other side
\nof the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical effects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elections. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not
\nenough to convince me to deny the application.
\nFirst, as the District Court acknowledged, the States disagree about the nature of these effects. App. to Application
\nfor Stay 44a. Twelve States supported the rule below and
\nasserted that compliance at this time is practicable.
\nSecond, the plaintiff States and the courts bear a substantial share of the blame for the rule\u2019s timing. In April,
\nthe plaintiff States sued to challenge the President\u2019s internal directive to subordinates mandating a rulemaking. For
\nmonths, this litigation cast a cloud over the Government\u2019s
\nability to issue a final rule. The District Court entered several injunctions months later prohibiting the Government
\nfrom undertaking that rulemaking. Not only was the Government subject to months of premature litigation and a series of injunctions that this Court later determined were
\nlikely issued without jurisdiction, the Government had to
\nwait nearly another full month for this Court to issue its
\ndecision so holding. Indeed, this Court spent from late July
\nto the end of August drafting nearly 40 pages of opinions,
\nincluding two dissents, despite the Government\u2019s public notice that it would not publish a final rule while subject to
\nthe injunctions, see 91 Fed. Reg. 44880, and its representation that it had a strong interest in issuing its rule in earlyto mid-August to allow time to implement it. The plaintiff
\nStates cannot claim the timing of the rule tilts the equities<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

8 POSTAL SERVICE v. CALIFORNIA
\nALITO, J., dissenting
\nin their favor when they, and courts hearing their claims,
\nare responsible for so much of the delay.
\n* * *
\nFor these reasons, I would grant the Government\u2019s application and respectfully dissent from the Court\u2019s denial<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

President Trumps Statement<\/strong><\/p>\n

Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court, one that the Court System took forever to give, and then blamed it, in part, on no time left to implement a solution to our totally CORRUPT and out of control Mail-In voting \u201cdisaster,\u201d which is a laughing stock all over the World, and where we are the only country that has to endure such a Nation Destroying SCAM. Justices Alito and Thomas, legends both, strongly disagreed with this horrible, highly political, ruling. It is a big loss for Republicans, and America itself, and makes cheating by the Radical Left \u201cDumocrats,\u201d on Mail-In Ballots, a much easier thing to do – And now they have an open field to do so!<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court has really let our Country down! Certain Justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats and are totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America. Their horrible decision on Tariffs will be costing the U.S.A., for many years to come, Trillions and Trillions of Dollars. They didn\u2019t even state, \u201cmoney paid does not have to be paid back,\u201d much to the benefit of entities that truly hate our Country, and have been RIPPING IT OFF FOR YEARS, unnecessarily costing us, immediately, Billions of Dollars. Likewise, the Supreme Court\u2019s Decision on Birthright Citizenship is a complete and total disaster for America, and has already led to massive corruption with respect to \u201ccitizenship\u201d in our Country.<\/p>\n

The damage done to America is incalculable, and they know this, just as everyone else does – It is an irreparable and unrecoverable harm! The Court\u2019s inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our Country will go down, in a very negative way, in the annals of History. This Supreme Court is bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years. These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves, a Court that is costing the United States Trillions of Dollars with shockingly bad rulings that are of such magnitude that it won\u2019t be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal. It is a Court that will go down as having rendered some of the most destructive, hurtful, and damaging decisions in our Country\u2019s history. It is not easy for me to write this criticism of the United States Supreme Court – it will likely cost me dearly for years to come – but I feel it my obligation and duty, as President, to do so for the America we love! Thank you for your attention to this very important matter. God bless the U.S.A. President DONALD J. TRUMP<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

PEN – 9\/15\/26 – Monday the Supreme Court declined to allow USPS to carry out parts of a new rule on mail-in voting. We believe this is a loss for the citizens of this nation. Their ruling is below – below that is President Trumps statement on this ruling. Cite as: 609 U. S. ____ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":40187,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40184","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\/40184","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=40184"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40184\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":40190,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40184\/revisions\/40190"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40187"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/postalemployeenetwork.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}