Supreme Court to decide on whether Trump’s voting-by-mail rules can go into effect – but might not rule yet on whether they’re constitutional

The Trump administration's proposal to restrict voting by mail in federal elections, outlined in a March 2026 executive order, is facing a critical legal challenge as the Supreme Court weighs whether to permit the measures to proceed or uphold a lower court's injunction blocking their implementation. Despite lacking evidence of widespread fraud, the White House claims these changes will bolster "election integrity via the United States Mail."

The administration's plans involve employing the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Department of Justice to verify voter eligibility, establish new standards for mail ballots, and investigate and prosecute officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters, such as noncitizens.

Two major lawsuits were filed to halt the administration's plans related to the Postal Service. These lawsuits argue that the measures would lead to significant disenfranchisement and that the administration lacks constitutional authority to intervene in how states conduct elections. The cases have progressed through lower courts, with the Supreme Court allowing them to proceed in August 2026.

However, a subsequent federal court issued an injunction to prevent the rollout of the Postal Service's plans, and the Supreme Court is now evaluating whether to lift the injunction and allow the administration's proposals for new mail-in ballot rules to take effect.

Schalit, the editor of The Conversation U.S. Politics and Legal Affairs, emphasizes the case's significance, describing it as a potential 9-10 on an importance scale. She argues that the decision could potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters, depending on the outcome. Schalit also notes that this is the first time a matter of such magnitude has reached the Supreme Court so close to an election, and there are no historical precedents for such a case.

She suggests that the Supreme Court may engage in a balancing exercise to determine which party would suffer irreparable harm, potentially denying a stay of the lower court's injunction and ruling on the constitutionality of the executive order after the election.