The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to allow an executive order restricting mail-in voting to take effect before the November midterm elections, escalating a legal fight just 99 days before voters head to the polls.
The emergency appeal came after the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court block of the order in a 2-1 decision, keeping the restrictions blocked in 23 states and Washington, D.C. that challenged the directive.
Trump signed the executive order on March 31, 2026, directing federal agencies to create lists of voters eligible for mail-in ballots and restricting the U.S. Postal Service from sending ballots to voters not included on those lists. The order also directed the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration to compile citizenship verification lists for each state.
In June, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, ruled the order violated the separation of powers and encroached on states’ constitutional authority to administer elections. She found the directive and related provisions “legally void” and blocked the Postal Service from implementing the rule in the 23 plaintiff states and D.C.
The First Circuit panel agreed with Talwani’s findings, writing that the order “directs unprecedented levels of involvement by federal officials in how states administer elections” and risked “confusion” and “disenfranchisement of many eligible voters.” Two of the three judges—one appointed by Biden and one by George W. Bush—voted to uphold the block, while a Trump appointee dissented.
The states, led by California, argue Trump lacks the constitutional authority to impose federal rules on elections administered by state and local officials. The Constitution reserves election administration to the states, a principle the courts have repeatedly cited in blocking the order.
Solicitor General John Sauer, in the emergency application to the Supreme Court, argued the challenge was premature because federal agencies had not yet finalized the policies needed to carry out Trump’s order. He contended that states were being “forced to prepare for changes” that may never occur, and claimed the lower court ruling imposed “irreparable harm” on the government’s efforts to “secure election integrity.”
The Supreme Court is not required to act on emergency applications, but the Court’s Republican-appointed majority has repeatedly sided with the Trump administration in recent cases and paused lower court rulings. However, in a rare pro-voting decision last month, the Court narrowly rejected a Republican effort to ban states from counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day if they are postmarked on or before it.
A separate federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., recently lifted a broader injunction against the Postal Service rule, leaving open the possibility that the service could implement the restrictions in states outside the 23-state coalition that sued. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the state looked forward to filing its response to the government’s application by the deadline set by Justice Jackson.
The Trump administration has promoted the changes as safeguards against illegal voting, while Democrats and voting-rights groups argue the order could prevent eligible voters from receiving or returning mail ballots. The dispute is one part of a broader Trump effort to reshape election rules ahead of the November midterms, including efforts to influence the 2026 midterms through policy changes and pressure on Congress to pass a national voter ID requirement and proof-of-citizenship rules for voter registration.
Sources
- CNBC — Trump administration’s Supreme Court appeal, federal appeals court ruling, order details, and voting rights groups’ arguments
- Democracy Docket — DOJ emergency application, First Circuit panel decision, Judge Talwani’s ruling, and Solicitor General Sauer’s arguments
- The Washington Post — Appeals court decision, composition of the three-judge panel, and timeline of the legal challenge
