In loss for Trump, US Supreme Court won't let Postal Service restrict mail ballots

Highlights:

• Postal Service rule would implement Trump mail-ballot order
• Two lower-court judges blocked USPS mail-ballot rule
• Trump administration says rule would prevent voter fraud
• Evidence of US voting fraud is rare

The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to let the US Postal Service enforce a rule targeting mail-in ballots, dealing a setback to President Donald Trump's effort to restrict voting by mail ahead of November's midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.

The justices denied the Justice Department's request to lift a ruling by Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani that blocked the Postal Service from enforcing the measure while legal challenges by states and voting-rights groups proceed. The agency adopted the measure after Trump issued a March executive order aimed at tightening rules governing mail voting.

"The government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court's preliminary injunction," the court said in its brief, one-paragraph order.

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented from Monday's decision. No other justice dissented publicly. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.

Trump's fellow Republicans are locked in a tight battle to retain control of Congress in the midterms. Restricting mail-in ballots would stand to benefit Republicans given that Democratic voters disproportionately use mail-in ballots, according to various surveys.

Under the rule, states would have to provide lists of mail ballot recipients to the Postal Service and use agency-approved outbound and return ballot mail envelopes outfitted with unique barcodes. The Postal Service could then refuse to send out ballots that do not comply with the new standards or are associated with voters who do not appear on the lists.

Critics have said the plan could disrupt the delivery of thousands of legitimate ballots as the November 3 vote approaches and cause chaos given imminent plans by many states to send out mail ballots to eligible voters. The administration has said the new rule will prevent voter fraud, though evidence of such fraud is rare.

Talwani imposed an injunction on 4 September blocking the rule, finding that it likely violated the US Constitution, under which states administer elections. Talwani also said it would be impossible for the states to comply given the rapidly approaching midterms.

Another federal judge, Washington, DC-based US District Judge Carl Nichols, also ruled against the rule on Sunday.

'Testing the limits'

Sophia Lin Lakin, voting rights project director at the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped to represent some of the challengers to the USPS rule, welcomed Monday's decision.

"This administration keeps testing the limits of its power, as if the rules governing our elections are merely suggestions to ignore when they don't suit the president's agenda. But the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to set the rules for federal elections — not the president, and not the Postal Service," she said.

"Today is a good day for democracy, the rule of law and the American people looking to exercise their constitutional right to vote," said California Governor Gavin Newsom, whose state led one of the lawsuits against the rule.

"Trump's attacks on democracy these last 20 months have been nothing short of un-American," Newsom added.

Trump signed his executive order targeting mail-in ballots after years of casting doubt on their security, though he often votes by mail himself. Trump has made false claims of widespread fraud in US elections including his 2020 loss to former Democratic President Joe Biden.

The administration in a 6 September emergency request urged the Supreme Court to allow it to implement an "important federal policy to protect the mails from being used to commit voter fraud."

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring statement on Monday, said there is a "fair prospect" that the rule falls within the Postal Service's authority, but state and local election officials "do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule" before the 2026 elections.

In his dissent, Alito likened some of the challengers' claims to a "Hail Mary pass" that is "unlikely to be successfully completed," using a football analogy.

"The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail," Alito added.

States challenged the rule

A coalition of states, most of them Democratic-governed, and Washington, DC, as well as a number of voting-rights groups, challenged the new USPS rule.

The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals refused last Thursday to put Talwani's order on hold. The 1st Circuit said that the rule "will likely result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters across the country while providing minimal - if any - gains in combating voter fraud."

The battle over mail ballots is one in a series of efforts by the administration to boost federal involvement in voting ahead of the midterms. On 24 August, the Supreme Court lifted an earlier injunction imposed by Talwani in June blocking Trump's executive order, including the USPS rule before it had been finalised.