Trump administration files emergency request asking Supreme Court to allow new restrictions on mail-in voting to take effect

The Trump administration returned to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the justices to temporarily block a federal judge’s order pausing key parts of a new U.S. Postal Service rule governing mail-in ballots ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed the emergency application on behalf of the government, asking the court to freeze an order issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston and grant an administrative stay while the justices consider the request, according to court filings reviewed by SCOTUSblog.

The filing marks the second time in less than six weeks that the administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene in litigation over President Donald Trump‘s mail-voting executive order. The case is docketed as U.S. Postal Service v. California, No. 26A297.

The Postal Service rule at the center of the dispute

The dispute centers on a Postal Service rule requiring state and local election officials to use federally approved ballot-envelope designs and upload voter names, addresses and ballot barcodes to a USPS-run online portal before ballots can be delivered, according to NOTUS.

Under the rule, ballots would not be transmitted if information submitted to the portal did not match the details on the ballot envelopes.

The rule stems from an executive order Trump signed in March directing the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of adult U.S. citizens in each state, instructing the attorney general to prioritize prosecuting state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters and requiring states to submit voter lists to the Postal Service, according to SCOTUSblog‘s Amy Howe.

Judge Talwani’s order and the government’s response

Talwani issued a temporary restraining order on August 27 blocking the Trump administration for 14 days from enforcing several provisions of the Postal Service rule, including the envelope-design standards and voter-data portal requirements, Howe reported.

In Thursday’s filing, Sauer argued that Talwani’s order “partially nullifies” the Postal Service’s efforts to guard against what he called voter fraud that dilutes lawful votes and undermines confidence in elections.

Sauer also rejected claims that the Postal Service is attempting to take over state election administration. He argued that the rule imposes limited requirements on envelope designs and addressee information for ballots sent through the mail.

He pointed to the Postal Service’s existing authority to regulate other categories of mail, including rules governing the shipment of cremated remains and replica explosives, as precedent for its rulemaking authority.

Sauer warned that the government would suffer serious harm without a stay because North Carolina and Alabama were scheduled to begin mailing ballots as soon as September 4.

“Once those ballot envelopes enter the mailstream, there is no retrieving them,” Sauer wrote.

What Judge Talwani found

In her August 27 ruling, Talwani concluded that states challenging the rule faced irreparable harm because complying with it was, in her assessment, practically impossible before the midterm elections, according to court documents cited by NBC News reporters Dareh Gregorian, Gary Grumbach and Lawrence Hurley.

Talwani said the rule requires election officials to submit ballot-envelope designs for USPS approval, create accounts on a new electronic portal and upload voter information, including names, addresses and intelligent mail barcodes.

She had previously ruled in a separate case brought by the League of Women Voters that the executive order’s mail-ballot provision was unconstitutional, finding no evidence that Congress had delegated authority to the Postal Service to regulate election mail.

That injunction was lifted after the Supreme Court ruled in the administration’s favor on August 24 in a related case, allowing the current dispute over the Postal Service’s implementation of the rule to proceed.

The litigation timeline

A coalition of 23 states led by California, along with the District of Columbia, sued the federal government in Massachusetts. They argued that Trump’s executive order violated constitutional provisions giving states authority over voter eligibility and the “Times, Places and Manner” of federal elections.

Talwani initially barred the federal government from implementing the challenged restrictions through the November 3 election in the District of Columbia and the 23 states.

After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to pause that order, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene on July 27. A group of 12 states led by Alabama, which had sided with the administration, joined the request.

On August 24, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to begin implementing the executive order. In a 10-page unsigned opinion, the justices said it was premature for courts to consider the states’ challenge because the order had not yet caused them measurable harm.

Whistleblower allegations add to the controversy

A whistleblower disclosure released by Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut alleged that the Postal Service rushed development of its ballot-tracking portal without subjecting it to standard testing before its planned rollout.

According to the disclosure, USPS began building the portal about three and a half months before its expected deployment and established a “zero percent failure rate” standard that could result in ballots being rejected without an appeals process.

Blumenthal responded to Thursday’s emergency filing by calling on Trump to abandon the Postal Service rule. In a post on X, he called the system “impossible to implement in time” and inconsistent with voting rights, while accusing the administration of what he described as deliberate sabotage of mail voting.

State officials push back

North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson joined nearly two dozen Democratic attorneys general in suing over the Postal Service rule before Thursday’s filing.

Jackson argued that the Constitution gives states, not the Postal Service, authority over elections. He said the last-minute rule threatened voting rights in North Carolina while imposing a new compliance process shortly before the election.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis defended the proposals as measures intended to protect the security of mail-in ballots. She told Newsweek that the administration would continue working to implement them to strengthen election safety and security.

What happens next

The Supreme Court directed the states and other challengers to respond to the administration’s emergency application by 10 a.m. EDT on September 8.

North Carolina and Alabama are among the first states scheduled to begin mailing ballots, with North Carolina’s mailings expected to start as soon as September 4.

That timeline puts pressure on the Supreme Court to act quickly because ballots cannot be recalled once they enter the postal system.