By Jacob Fischler, States Newsroom and Bugle News Sources

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday kept in place a lower court’s order blocking President Donald Trump’s embattled plan to place new restrictions on mail ballots for this year’s midterm elections.

The unsigned, one-paragraph order upheld a Massachusetts federal court’s injunction on a U.S. Postal Service rule until after Nov. 3 and did not decide whether the rule itself was lawful. But a majority of the court said the Democratic state officials and voting rights groups challenging the rule were likely to succeed.

Two of the court’s stalwart conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissented from the decision. Alito wrote that the Postal Service has “broad authority to regulate the mail” and that at this preliminary stage of the suit challenging the rule, its policy should remain in place.

“I express no view on whether the Government would be likely to succeed on de novo review of the Postal Service’s powers,” he wrote. “But for now, the Government has satisfied its burden of making a strong showing that the plaintiff States’ … claim is not likely to succeed.”

In a brief concurrence, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the rule, which codifies technical requirements on the envelopes carrying ballots and requires states to collect and send to the federal government lists of eligible voters, may be legal, but was unworkable for the midterm elections 50 days away.

“There is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority,” he wrote. “But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious … because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”

The rule’s challengers argued, in part, that the regulations would be impossible to install ahead of Election Day. Several election administrators, pro-democracy groups and others declared to the court that they agreed with that argument.

The Postal Service did not bring any evidence against those claims.

Democrats and voting rights advocates also argued the rule was illegal and unconstitutional. The executive branch has virtually no role in elections administration, which is a state responsibility with congressional oversight under the U.S. Constitution, they said.

The case, tried before President Barack Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, will continue to evaluate the legality of the rule for future elections.

Challengers react

The groups and officials challenging the rule, as well as other Democrats, hailed the ruling in statements.

“Today’s order from our nation’s highest court makes clear that states cannot be forced to undermine their mail voting systems and risk voter disenfranchisement because of the President’s political agenda,” Massachusetts Attorney General Joy Campbell said. “Mail voting is safe, secure, and reliable, and I will continue to stand up for Massachusetts residents who rely on mail ballots to ensure that they can have their voices heard in the November election.”

Virginia Kase Solomón, the president and CEO of Common Cause, one of the groups suing to block the rule, called the decision “a major win for the millions of everyday Americans,” including elderly and rural voters, and those with disabilities, who depend on vote-by-mail.

“This executive order was a blatant power grab designed to silence voters and undermine our elections, but it failed because the people and the law were on our side,” she said in a statement. “Our Constitution is clear: states run our elections, and voters choose their leaders—not the other way around. No administration can strip the people of their power.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said the rule was part of Trump’s “attacks on democracy” for the past 20 months.

“California stood up for democracy and we won,” Newsom wrote on social media. “Today is a good day for democracy, the rule of law, and the American people looking to exercise their Constitutional right to vote.”

Phil Weiser, Colorado’s attorney general and Democratic nominee for governor, said the court “just sent the message that President Trump and the Postal Service need to stay the hell away from our elections.”

California and Colorado are among the eight states that send ballots to every registered voter.

Spokespeople for the White House, Postal Service and U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the administration in the case, did not respond to emails seeking comment late Monday.

In the hour following the ruling, Trump posted on his social media platform in opposition to slowing artificial intelligence development, the poor condition of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts building and his promise to send every voter $5,000 if Republicans win the upcoming midterms, but did not address the ruling.

Governor Kotek Applauds Supreme Court Ruling Halting Attacks on Vote-By-Mail

SALEM, Ore. - Today (Tuesday), Governor Tina Kotek released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold of vote-by-mail.

“Oregonians have been voting by mail for decades. We know it works. It is secure, trusted, and gives every eligible Oregonian a voice. Today, the Supreme Court affirmed that President Trump and the U.S. Postal Service must follow the law. This is yet another win in our fight to protect your right to vote.”

Statement from Attorney General Dan Rayfield on the Supreme Court’s Rejection of Trump’s Election Scheme

Salem, OR – Attorney General Dan Rayfield issued the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s push to put new restrictions on mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterms. The Court kept in place a lower court’s ruling that blocked a U.S. Postal Service rule requiring states to meet new ballot design and voter-list requirements before ballots could be mailed.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a win for Oregon voters, and a win for free and fair elections. The U.S. Constitution is clear: no president has the authority to interfere with our elections, and today the Supreme Court affirmed that basic fact. Donald Trump will not be able to use the United States Postal Service to stand between you and your ballot.

“What does this mean for Oregon voters? It means we’ll continue to vote in November just like we have for decades, with a Vote By Mail system that is safe, secure, and accurate. We can expect that Trump will continue looking for ways to meddle with our elections, and we’ll continue blocking him. We must all remain vigilant, and we’ll keep fighting to ensure that no one—not even the president—can interfere with our right to vote.”

AG Rayfield and a coalition of 23 states, the District of Columbia, and the Governor of Pennsylvania have filed a lawsuit to block this rule from ever taking effect. The lawsuit argues that USPS’s rule violates the Constitution, which makes clear that states have the primary authority to administer elections, and if implemented, would upend successful, longstanding vote-by-mail procedures. The lawsuit also argues the rule is inconsistent with USPS’s governing statutes, ignores USPS’s procedural requirements, violates the Privacy Act, and is inconsistent with federal voting rights law.

Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., response to Supreme Court's vote-by-mail ruling:

“I am gratified the Supreme Court has recognized the obvious and rejected Donald Trump’s unconstitutional plot to undermine the proven and effective vote-by-mail process in Oregon and nationwide,” Wyden said. “This is good news for fair elections and democracy. But it’s essential to remain vigilant in anticipation that Trump will stop at nothing when it comes to concocting illegal schemes that would cheat voters and thwart democracy.”

Earlier news release:

Merkley, Wyden, Colleagues Urge Supreme Court to Block Postal Service Rule Limiting Mail-In Voting

261 Members and former Members file bicameral, bipartisan brief as court order barring Postal Service rule limiting mail voting is being challenged by Trump’s DOJ

Washington, D.C. – Oregon’s U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden joined a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of 261 current and former Members of Congress challenging the legality of President Trump’s Executive Order and U.S. Postal Service (USPS) rule seeking to exert control over mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

“Millions of Americans cast their ballots with vote-by-mail, and Donald Trump is trying to make it harder for folks to vote just weeks before an election,” said Merkley. “At Trump’s bidding, this new USPS rule would upend procedures that states and voters rely on and create confusion about whether ballots will be delivered and counted. Trump doesn’t have unilateral authority to rewrite the rules for voting, and we’re urging the Supreme Court to protect the constitutional role of Congress and states in administering our free and fair elections.”

“Donald Trump is plotting in plain sight to rig the upcoming election by weaponizing the Postal Service to undermine vote-by-mail in Oregon and nationwide,” said Wyden. “Vote-by-mail has long proven to be fair and effective, which of course means Trump hates it and is scheming to create confusion weeks before ballots go out. His actions are illegal, and our court brief asks the Supreme Court to follow the clear language of the Constitution and protect elections throughout America.”

The coalition of 261 current and former Members of Congress filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of State of California, et al. v. United States Postal Service, et al., a lawsuit brought by a coalition of State Attorneys General against the USPS. The court case challenges a final rule issued by the USPS pursuant to Trump’s directive that imposes unconstitutional and unworkable restrictions on mail-in voting, including requiring states to provide a “citizenship verification list” and attempting to give USPS control over who can vote by mail.

Nearly one-third of Americans have voted by mail in recent elections — a voting practice Trump himself used as recently as August 2026, when he voted in Florida’s Republican primary.

In the court filing, the amici curiae argue that Trump’s Executive Order 14399 and USPS’s final rule violate the separation of powers and usurp congressional authorities outlined in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the States and Congress exclusive authority over election administration.

The amici also pointed to a recent federal court ruling blocking the USPS from implementing its newly finalized mail ballot rule for the midterm elections, saying the agency lacked the authority to implement the rule and that its actions are “substantively unconstitutional and contrary to law.”

The lawmakers concluded by asserting States’ power to administer elections and Congress’s power to make or alter rules regulating elections, which the Supreme Court itself has described as an “override” authority. Trump’s illegal incursion on this authority is an attempt to disenfranchise people who depend on mail-in ballots to vote.

The amicus brief was led by U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-Mich.), along with Representative Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.-25), Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, and Co-Chairs of the House Democrats’ Litigation Task Force Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.-42), Assistant Leader Joe Neguse (D-Colo.-02), and Judiciary Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.-08).

In addition to Merkley and Wyden, the brief was joined by the entire Senate Democratic Caucus, current Members of Congress, and former Members of Congress from both parties.

Merkley and Wyden have consistently supported access to voting by mail and have previously urged USPS to follow federal law and protect voters’ ability to cast their ballots by mail.

Full text of the amicus brief can be found by clicking here.