Trump administration seeks limits on mail-in voting

President Donald Trump’s administration is seeking Supreme Court backing for a set of federal actions that would tighten how mail ballots are handled ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The fight centers on a March executive order directing federal agencies to pursue new election-integrity measures, including steps tied to voter-citizenship lists, criminal enforcement and postal handling of ballots. On Aug. 24, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to begin implementing major parts of that order while litigation continues. A separate dispute over a U.S. Postal Service ballot-mail rule remains active, with a fresh emergency application filed Sept. 6. ### What exactly did the Supreme Court already allow? The Supreme Court said on Aug. 24 that the administration could move forward, for now, with provisions of Trump’s executive order after pausing a lower-court injunction that had blocked them in 23 states and the District of Columbia. In an unsigned opinion, the court said the states had not yet shown the kind of injury needed to keep their suit moving at that stage. (supremecourt.gov) The March order, identified by the court as Executive Order 14399, directs the Department of Homeland Security to create state citizenship lists, tells the attorney general to prioritize investigations and possible prosecutions involving ballots issued to ineligible voters, and instructs the Postal Service to pursue rulemaking on ballot-mail procedures. The court said the order itself is an internal directive to executive agencies and “neither requires nor forbids” conduct by parties outside the executive branch. (supremecourt.gov) ### Which mail-voting limits are still being fought over? A Sept. 6 filing by Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to stay another injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts, this time over the Postal Service’s ballot-mail rule. That application names the Postal Service, Postmaster General David Steiner and a coalition of states led by California among the parties. (supremecourt.gov) The government’s Supreme Court filings say the Postal Service rule cannot be implemented for the November 2026 federal election unless the justices intervene. An earlier administration brief said the rule would require states using the mail for ballots to provide submission data and would change ballot-mail procedures tied to future election cycles as well. (supremecourt.gov) ### Does this case mean the court has endorsed stricter deadlines for mailed ballots? The Supreme Court’s June 29 ruling in Watson v. Republican National Committee points in a narrower direction. In that 5-4 decision, the court upheld a Mississippi law allowing ballots to be counted if they were postmarked by Election Day and arrived within five days afterward. (supremecourt.gov) Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority that federal election-day statutes require voters’ choices to be made on Election Day, but “do not set a deadline for ballot receipt.” Chief Justice John Roberts joined that opinion along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, while Brett Kavanaugh joined most of the dissent. (preview.scotusblog.com) ### What are the states and voting groups arguing? California and other plaintiff states argue that Trump’s order intrudes on state authority over voter eligibility and the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections. Voting groups in the parallel Massachusetts case have separately challenged the Postal Service component. (preview.scotusblog.com) The Justice Department’s own 2024 voting guidance, issued before Trump returned to office, said federal law does not treat all state changes to mail voting as presumptively lawful or unlawful and noted that the department reviews such changes for compliance with federal election law, including the Voting Rights Act. That guidance also said states have taken different approaches since 2020, with some expanding mail voting and others adding restrictions. (scotusblog.com) ### What happens next at the court? The Sept. 6 emergency application puts the Postal Service dispute back before the justices less than two weeks after their Aug. 24 order in Trump v. California. SCOTUSblog reported on Sept. 6 that it was the administration’s third emergency filing in under six weeks, and the court could act at any time on whether the Postal Service rule may take effect for the 2026 elections. (scotusblog.com) (justice.gov)