The Trump administration renewed its appeal to the US Supreme Court on Sunday to allow restrictions on mail-in voting for the November midterms, marking the third time the administration has sought the highest court’s intervention in an ongoing legal battle over postal voting rules.
The latest filing follows a decision by US district court judge Indira Talwani on Friday to extend a court order preventing the US Postal Service from enforcing Trump’s executive order restricting mail ballots. Solicitor General John Sauer argued in the emergency application that the delay risks “sowing confusion and chaos” as states begin mailing ballots, noting that North Carolina has already begun sending ballots and Alabama is scheduled to start on September 9, with at least five additional states beginning the week of September 13.
Trump signed the executive order in March directing the USPS to prohibit ballot delivery to voters not on federal lists of citizens deemed eligible by the Department of Homeland Security. The order would require states to provide the postal service with names and barcodes tied to mail-in ballots for federal elections, effectively giving the USPS unprecedented control over who receives mail ballots. The Trump administration has called the restrictions “commonsense measures” aimed at protecting voting security.
Democratic-led states and voting rights groups argue the order is unconstitutional, contending that only states and Congress have authority over federal election rules under the Constitution. The Brennan Center for Justice warned that if implemented, the executive order would “inject chaos into our elections, block eligible American citizens from voting, undermine voter privacy, and expose election officials and others to criminal prosecution simply for doing their jobs.” Legal experts have raised additional concerns about the USPS’s capacity to manage such a complex system; the agency has no election management expertise and has experienced mail ballot delivery delays in recent elections.
The Supreme Court has already intervened twice in this dispute. On August 24, the Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with the plan in an unsigned opinion, but the justices explicitly noted they were not ruling on whether the order was constitutional. The Court’s decision turned on procedural grounds, finding that states had sued prematurely before suffering concrete harm. Within days, however, federal judge Talwani blocked key provisions from taking effect, setting the stage for the administration’s latest appeal.
Nearly one-third of US voters cast their ballots by mail, according to voting statistics cited by the Council on Foreign Relations. The timing of the legal fight creates what some legal experts call a “Catch-22”: the Supreme Court previously ruled it was too early to decide the case on its merits, but if the justices now wait to rule, they may invoke the “Purcell principle”—a doctrine holding that federal courts should avoid changing voting rules close to Election Day—to allow the restrictions to proceed by default. Georgetown Law professor Steve Vladek has warned that such an outcome would amount to “an indefensible and anti-democratic ruling.”
State election officials have said there is not enough time to overhaul their systems to meet the federal directives. To date, not a single state has announced it will voluntarily adopt the new postal service system. The USPS has said it stands ready to implement the restrictions if the court injunctions are lifted, though the agency has yet to fully set up the Federal Ballot Mail Portal on which the entire plan depends.
Sources
- The Guardian — Trump administration’s Sunday renewal of Supreme Court bid, Judge Talwani’s Friday order, executive order details, and Solicitor General Sauer’s filing
- Council on Foreign Relations — Expert analysis on mail voting statistics, legal challenges, Purcell principle concerns, and electoral impact
- Brennan Center for Justice — Constitutional analysis of executive order, impacts on election administration and voter access, USPS capacity concerns
