The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an emergency application from the Trump administration seeking to reinstate a new U.S. Postal Service regulation governing mail-in ballots, leaving a lower court ruling blocking the rule in place. The court appeared divided 7-2, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting. The decision prevents the regulation from taking effect before the 2026 midterm elections.

The blocked rule would have required states to submit lists of eligible voters to the Postal Service, which would then verify that ballots were sent only to individuals on those lists before delivering them. States would also have been required to follow Postal Service directives on ballot envelope design. Challengers argued the rule represented an extraordinary expansion of federal executive authority over state-administered elections and would have caused widespread disruption with balloting already underway in some states, including North Carolina, which began sending ballots on Sept. 4.

The legal challenge was led by California and a coalition of states alongside nonprofit groups including the League of Women Voters and the Campaign Legal Center. California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the decision 'a victory for our democracy and a powerful affirmation of the rule of law.' Tianna Mays, legal director at Democracy Defenders Fund, said the ruling made clear that 'the Constitution does not give the president unilateral authority governing federal elections regarding mail voting.' Justice Alito, in dissent, said the federal government had the stronger legal argument, though he acknowledged that concerns about implementation logistics gave him pause.

The rule originated from an executive order President Trump signed in March directing the Postal Service to take a role in verifying ballot distribution. Trump has repeatedly and without evidence characterized mail-in voting as susceptible to widespread fraud. A whistleblower within the Postal Service had reportedly warned of significant operational risks in attempting to screen mail-in ballots at scale. Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center, said he remained confident the underlying executive order would ultimately be found unconstitutional and permanently blocked.

The ruling carries significant implications for election administration across all 50 states heading into the midterm cycle. Election officials and voting rights advocates said implementing the rule on short notice would have created confusion for voters and jeopardized local officials' ability to administer elections. The decision reinforces longstanding precedent that states hold primary authority over election administration, a principle cited by several parties to the case, including Travis County, Texas Clerk Dyana Limon-Mercado and the Arizona Students' Association.