The US Supreme Court rejected Donald Trump’s push to impose new limits on mail-in voting, refusing to reinstate a federal plan that would have changed the rules just before the November midterms. Ballots were already going out in states such as North Carolina. The decision keeps the current system in place and blocks last-minute changes that could have disrupted voting. On September 10, 2026, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift an injunction against the Trump administration’s new mail-ballot rules, leaving the USPS unable to enforce them before the election, Reuters reported.
The Trump administration issued an executive order in March requiring the US Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters listed on newly compiled eligibility rolls. Trump defended the move with repeated, unproven claims that mail voting is vulnerable to fraud. Lower courts blocked the order, and the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene leaves that block in effect. The New York Times reports that the order would have required USPS to accept mail ballots only when the data came directly from state election officials, a requirement federal judges blocked twice in September.
Only two of the court’s six conservative justices dissented. Brett Kavanaugh wrote that, even if the Trump plan might be legal in the long run, states and local officials did not have enough time to put such sweeping changes in place before the election. The lack of legal clarity had already confused election officials, who warned that rushed, improvised postal procedures could disenfranchise millions of voters. AP and Reuters report that states had already started mailing ballots, and an abrupt rule change could have put the ongoing election process at risk.
States led by Democrats challenged the federal order, arguing that the US Constitution gives them, rather than Washington, control over how elections are run. Civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, called the Supreme Court’s move a major win for voting rights. Sophia Lin Lakin, an ACLU attorney, accused the Trump administration of treating election rules as obstacles to its political goals. Reuters reports that opponents argued states have primary authority over election procedures, rather than the federal government. Court filings and media reports reflect that position.
Trump’s own use of mail voting adds an irony: despite his public criticism, he has repeatedly voted by mail himself, most recently in the Florida Republican primaries. His fraud claims have been closely tied to his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential race. Polls show Republicans struggling to keep control of Congress, especially the House, raising the stakes for voting access. If Democrats win, they have signaled plans to block Trump’s legislative agenda and may pursue a third impeachment.
Postal service insiders warned that millions of ballots might not reach voters in time if new systems were rushed into place. State officials called the situation chaotic, with legal uncertainty threatening confidence in the election. As reported earlier, the Supreme Court’s intervention prevents a last-minute overhaul that could have left voters in limbo.
The ruling limits executive power over elections and reaffirms that states have the basic role in organizing the vote. The Supreme Court’s decision signals that attempts to rewrite election rules at the last minute will face close judicial scrutiny. Mail-in voting rules remain unchanged for now, but the fight over how Americans cast their ballots continues. The case highlights tensions between federal ambitions and constitutional boundaries, and shows that a single administration cannot easily change US election rules.
