Supreme Court’s mail ballot ruling brings giant sigh of relief to Trump critics

The US Supreme Court has dismissed President Donald Trump's proposal to curtail mail-in voting in the run-up to the midterm elections, a blow for the White House. The court affirmed a federal judge's temporary injunction that halted the US Postal Service (USPS) from implementing new requirements for mail ballots. However, it is uncertain whether this decision marks the end of the matter.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the ruling but hinted at a possible reversal if the legal battle persists. Trump, who contended that the rules would curb electoral fraud, issued an executive order in March directing the USPS to deliver ballots exclusively to registered voters. Legal arguments contended that this action infringed upon states' constitutional authority to conduct elections.

Justice Kavanaugh contended that there was "substantial probability" the final rule was within the Postal Service's statutory jurisdiction. However, he cautioned that "enforcing the rule in 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious." Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, asserting the appeal to Trump's order was a "Hail Mary pass" with little chance of success.

They added that the Postal Service possesses broad authority to regulate the mail. The White House did not respond immediately to the decision.

Trump has been striving to restrict mail-in voting since returning to the White House. He has persistently alleged that mail-in voting enables non-citizens to vote and is susceptible to fraud. In March, the president ordered the USPS to affix unique barcodes to ballot envelopes and for state and local election officials to submit voter information to an online portal.

Twenty-three states and Washington DC filed lawsuits challenging Trump's order. The postal workers' union also raised concerns about inadequate training for clerks ahead of the election, while a national security group raised worries about military personnel voting overseas.

In court filings, the Trump administration maintained that the new USPS regulations were constitutional, arguing that states "cannot opt to utilize the federal mails for their elections but then claim their election-related mail is exempt from the Postal Service's rule-making authority, established by Congress."

Judge Indira Talwani of Boston imposed an injunction on September 4th, blocking Trump's order, citing the potential disenfranchisement of voters if the measures were implemented close to the election. The following week, a US appeals court refused to suspend Judge Talwani's order. Another federal judge, Carl Nichols, ruled against Trump's order last week.

Several states had already initiated the distribution of mail-in ballots prior to the midterm elections, which will determine the control of Congress. This is not the first setback for Trump regarding mail-in voting before the Supreme Court. In June, the justices ruled that states could count ballots postmarked by election day, rejecting the administration's attempt to bar votes received after polls close.

Approximately 30% of voters in the 2024 general election cast their ballots via mail, according to the US Election Assistance Commission, a federal independent, bipartisan commission. Trump has previously made unsubstantiated claims of losing the 2020 election due to widespread electoral fraud.