The Supreme Court decided Monday to let President Donald Trump proceed with plans to restrict mail-in voting in the 2026 midterm elections — at least for now.
Divided 6-3 along ideological lines, the justices granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to block a judge’s order that prevented key elements of the executive order from taking effect this year in 23 states that challenged it.
Download the Straight Arrow app today to get the stories that matter free from manipulation, bias or agenda.
Point phone camera here
The order, signed by Trump in March, tasked his administration to create lists of eligible voters and instructed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. Democratic officials sued to block the order, arguing that the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to run elections, not the president.
The order left room for additional court challenges, The Associated Press reported, which could slow Trump’s order. It’s unclear how much of Trump’s order the administration could implement before the midterm elections, as deadlines are quickly approaching for many states.
Trump has long claimed that mail-in ballots create large amounts of voter fraud, despite him using the method to vote in his home state of Florida.
In its unsigned order, the court’s majority made clear that this was not the final say.
“The court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful,” the court’s majority said. “On that score, time will tell.”
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with states’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful. Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives. Instead, today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.”
The case’s timeline
In late June, Massachusetts Federal District Court Judge Indira Talwani temporarily blocked Trump’s order, finding that it violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. She determined that Congress hadn’t given the Postal Service the authority to determine which voters should receive mail-in ballots. Talwani also found that the executive order didn’t allow enough time before November’s midterms for the Postal Service to follow the legally required process for agencies when they adopt new rules, The New York Times reported.
A federal appeals court previously upheld Talwani’s ruling, but the Trump administration filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court asking justices to rule, with several Republican state attorneys general filing a separate, parallel request, according to The Times.
Democratic state attorneys general argued that the order allowed the federal government “to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program that would … give the U.S. Postal Service far-reaching new powers and responsibilities.”
They wrote that allowing Trump’s executive order would lead to chaotic outcomes as states prepared to send out absentee ballots. They said the decision could confuse and potentially disenfranchise voters, since the administration was likely to make errors and there wouldn’t be enough time to remedy them.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who led the lawsuit against the Trump administration, told Bloomberg TV that he believed Trump’s order lacked any legal merit and that ultimately, they would win.
“We think we will win this case in every court, including the federal trial court, the appellate court, and the U.S. Supreme Court,” Bonta said.