Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to revive strict mail-ballot rules before midterms
by By Stephanie Pierce and Bill Mears, FoxNews.com, September, 15, 2026
Election expert says judge is trying to ‘run out the clock’ on Trump mail-ballot rule
Jason Snead accused Democratic-led states of resisting new USPS mail-ballot standards, while attorney Gregory Teufel argued the federal court overstepped its authority in blocking their implementation.
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s emergency bid to enforce new U.S. Postal Service (USPS) restrictions on mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, leaving a lower court’s nationwide block in place.
In a brief order, the court said the government was "unlikely to succeed on the merits" for purposes of obtaining emergency relief and had not shown that the legal and practical considerations warranted a stay.
The rules would require federal ballot mail to be sent in envelopes bearing an election-mail logo, capable of being scanned by high-speed equipment and carrying a barcode unique to each voter.
State and local election officials would also be required to submit envelope designs to the Postal Service for review and upload basic voter information to an online USPS portal.
Under the USPS rule, mailings that failed to comply would not be accepted and would instead be returned to election officials to correct and resubmit.
A federal judge previously blocked the USPS from implementing the rules, including the online portal that could be used to track millions of mail ballots.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision but indicated the USPS may ultimately have the authority to impose the requirements.
"In my view, based on the briefing the Court has received at this interim stage, there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority," Kavanaugh wrote.
However, he said attempting to apply the rules during the 2026 elections would be "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have enough time to reasonably implement them.
JACKSON RIPS INTO SUPREME COURT COLLEAGUES' 'SERIOUS LEGAL ERROR' ON TRUMP MAIL-IN VOTING ORDER
Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the decision, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Alito argued that some of the plaintiffs lacked legal standing and that the remaining challengers were pursuing what the court has previously called a "Hail Mary pass" that "rarely succeeds."
"The Government has made the showings necessary for a stay, so I respectfully dissent," Alito wrote.
Alito said the USPS has broad authority to regulate the collection, handling, transportation and delivery of mail. He also argued that the government would suffer irreparable harm because any reversal of the lower court’s injunction would come too late for the midterms.
