The U.S. Supreme Court has responded to an emergency request from the Trump administration regarding a new U.S. Postal Service rule issued in response to an executive order regarding mail-in ballots.
The nation’s highest court on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s emergency request to enforce new Postal Service requirements for mail-in ballots during the 2026 midterm elections, leaving existing state procedures in place with voting already underway in parts of the country.
In a brief order Monday, the justices refused to lift a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts that blocked the U.S. Postal Service rule nationwide.
“The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction,” the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court aded that the other factors required for emergency relief also weighed against the administration.
The rule was developed after President Donald Trump issued a March executive order directing the Postal Service to tighten procedures involving ballots sent through the mail.
Under the final regulation, state and local election officials would have been required to submit information identifying mail-ballot recipients, obtain Postal Service approval for ballot-envelope designs and use voter-specific Intelligent Mail barcodes on outgoing and return envelopes.
The Postal Service could refuse to process ballots that failed to meet the new requirements.
The administration argued that the changes were legitimate postal regulations intended to reduce the possibility of election fraud and improve tracking of election mail.
States, voting-rights groups and election officials countered that implementing an entirely new system only weeks before the Nov. 3 election could cause valid ballots to be rejected or delayed.
Talwani agreed and issued the preliminary injunction Sept. 4.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently refused to put her order on hold, leading the administration to seek emergency intervention from the Supreme Court.
The Court says the government is unlikely to succeed in overturning Talwani’s injunction and the equities do not favor a stay. Kavanaugh concurs but says USPS may have authority to issue the rule; he finds implementing it this close to the election unlawfully rushed.
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) September 14, 2026
Read the ruling here: https://t.co/ySbgq7I3tj
— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) September 14, 2026
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately to explain why he sided against the administration even though he believed the Postal Service might ultimately have legal authority to adopt such a rule.
Kavanaugh said there was “at least a fair prospect” that the regulation fell within the Postal Service’s statutory powers.
But he concluded that imposing it during the current election would violate the Administrative Procedure Act because election officials did not have enough time to implement the changes reasonably.
“State and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Alito argued that the government had met the legal requirements for a stay and questioned whether some of the challengers had standing to sue.
He also emphasized the Postal Service’s broad legal authority to regulate the mail.
No other justice publicly dissented.
The decision is particularly significant because some election officials had already begun mailing ballots and others were approaching federal deadlines for sending ballots to military and overseas voters.
Seven Republican state election officials had also urged the Supreme Court not to impose the rule for the November election, arguing that their concern was not with the policy itself but with the disruption that could result from such a late change.
The Supreme Court’s action does not permanently strike down the Postal Service rule.
The underlying lawsuits will continue, and courts will still have to determine whether the agency has authority to impose the requirements in future elections.
That distinction is important because the court previously allowed Trump’s March executive order to remain in effect while challenges to it proceeded, concluding that an earlier lawsuit was premature before the Postal Service finalized its regulations.
The justices made clear at the time that challengers could return to court once an actual rule existed.
A second federal judge, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington, also blocked the rule Sunday, providing an additional legal barrier to immediate implementation.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
