The Trump administration filed its third emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to keep U.S. Postal Service mail-ballot integrity rules in place as states begin sending ballots for the November 3 midterm elections.
The Trump administration filed its third emergency appeal with the Supreme Court on Sunday to keep U.S. Postal Service mail-ballot integrity rules in force for the November 3 midterm elections. The filing lands just as North Carolina ballots are already in the mail and Alabama prepares to begin sending its own on September 9. At stake is whether federal safeguards designed to keep ballots from reaching voters who are not on citizenship-verified lists can apply this cycle, with control of Congress hanging in the balance. Roughly one in three American voters casts a ballot by mail, which means the outcome of the dispute could touch tens of millions of votes.
Sunday's application asks the justices to set aside a preliminary injunction issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston. The order blocks the Postal Service from enforcing key parts of its new mail-ballot rule -- ballot envelope design standards and a requirement that states submit recipient information through a USPS online portal -- in the 23 states and the District of Columbia that sued, led by California.
The Justice Department withdrew its earlier pending request after filing the new application on Sunday morning. It is the third time in roughly six weeks that the administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the dispute, and the justices have already shown they are willing to engage: in late August the Court let implementation of the order proceed while the underlying legal fight continued.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned the justices that the calendar is the real enemy. North Carolina began mailing ballots last week, Alabama follows on September 9, and at least five more states start the week of September 13. "Once those ballot envelopes enter the mailstream, there is no retrieving them," Sauer wrote in the filing. He argued that every day the injunction stays in place sows confusion because it turns mandatory preparation into a voluntary exercise.
The rules trace back to an executive order signed in March, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to build lists of adult U.S. citizens in every state and deliver them at least 60 days before each federal election. It also instructs the attorney general to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of state and local officials who issue federal ballots to people who are not eligible to vote. Under the third piece, states must hand the Postal Service the list of voters to whom they intend to mail ballots, and the agency's new rule builds the machinery to match ballot mail against those lists.
In practice, the final rule sets standard envelope-design requirements for federal-election ballot mail and asks states to upload the name, address, and barcode information of intended ballot recipients into a USPS portal -- data election officials already hold. Administration lawyers describe the requirements as modest preparation rules, not a takeover. States still decide voter eligibility, ballot content, mailing deadlines, and ballot-counting procedures. The Postal Service has long governed election-related mail, from the Election Mail logo to priority handling of ballot mail, and nothing in the rule touches in-person voting.
Supporters frame the package as commonsense election integrity. Mail ballots should flow only to verified, eligible citizens, and officials who mail federal ballots to people who cannot legally vote should face real consequences. With mail balloting now used by roughly a third of the electorate, they argue, the mailstream is the most exposed point in the system -- and the easiest place for bad actors to inject illegitimate ballots.
The challenge comes from California and 22 other states plus the District of Columbia, which sued in federal court in Massachusetts. They argue the order and the Postal Service rule collide with the Constitution, which assigns states the power to set the times, places, and manner of congressional elections. Voting rights groups, including the League of Women Voters in a separate challenge, have joined the fight on the same side.
Judge Talwani first blocked implementation through Election Day earlier this summer. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to pause that order, the administration filed its first Supreme Court application on July 27. In late August the high court let the plan move forward, ruling in an unsigned opinion that the states' challenge had come too early -- the order had not yet been carried out, so the states could not yet show the kind of injury needed to sue.
The Boston judge did not stop there. On August 27 she issued a temporary restraining order against parts of the Postal Service rule, and on Friday she converted that into a preliminary injunction. She wrote that immediate implementation of a final rule issued less than 70 days before the November election threatens disenfranchisement of millions of citizens who seek to vote by mail, and that the record included no evidence of fraudulent mail voting to justify rushed implementation.
Twelve states led by Alabama have joined the administration's side in court. Administration lawyers counter that the injunction is unreasoned and unlawful and that the rule does not federalize elections -- it simply tells states how to prepare ballot mail they are already sending, using information they already possess.
The Supreme Court has put the case on a fast track, directing challengers to file their response by 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 8. A decision could come within days, and election officials across the country are watching closely because the answer changes how they prepare ballot mail for the fall campaign.
If the injunction stands, compliance with the envelope and portal requirements becomes voluntary for the 2026 cycle. If the justices lift it, states must move quickly to meet the standards even as ballots are already moving -- the chaos warning at the heart of the administration's filing. Election officials in states that run all-mail elections have raised practical questions about the timeline, and those concerns are likely to feature in the filings due Tuesday. For voters, the practical bottom line is simple: in-person voting is unchanged, and mail voters should still receive their ballots and return them by their state's deadline.
Beyond November, the fight is part of a broader national debate over citizenship verification and election integrity that will not end with this ruling. The justices have already signaled the framework deserves a hard look, and whichever way the emergency application lands, the underlying lawsuit over the executive order will continue. With razor-thin margins expected in the fight for the House and Senate, how the Court handles ballot mail in the next week could shape both the mechanics and the politics of the 2026 midterms.
The Trump administration filed its third emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to keep U.S. Postal Service mail-ballot integrity rules in place as states begin sending ballots for the November 3 midterm elections.
freedomlinedispatch.com
