Supreme Court clears hurdle for Trump mail-voting order, raising implementation concerns
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its mail-voting restrictions, but officials warn the timing and requirements could make compliance impossible before the November midterms.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted preliminary approval for President Donald Trump’s executive order that would tighten mail-ballot procedures, stating that Democratic-run states had not yet had a chance to challenge the order in June. The decision restarts legal battles over the order just weeks before ballots are scheduled to be mailed to overseas and military voters in North Carolina on Sept. 4.
A separate injunction that bars the Postal Service from altering operations to meet the new directive remains in place, though the administration has filed a motion to lift it and posted draft regulations that could take effect on Tuesday if the court clears the path. The proposed rule would require specific envelope formats and an electronic system for states to identify mail voters; non-compliance could result in ballots not being sent.
Election officials expressed doubts about meeting the deadline. > Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in dissent, said the decision “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.” > David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the majority “seemed to create complete chaos leading up to the midterm elections” and that compliance would be “impossible.” > Jesse Salinas, registrar of Yolo County, California, noted that ballots are due to be mailed in 11 days and his county has already printed envelopes, adding that the timeline “is a bit chaotic.” > Tammy Patrick, chief program officer at the Elections Center, said no state currently conducts elections in the manner required by the new postal rule. > Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar questioned whether the Postal Service could build a “massive database that has 100% accuracy” within a week.
The order follows previous attempts by the president to limit mail voting, a practice used by about 29% of voters in 2024, with higher usage among Democrats. Legal scholars said the Supreme Court’s unsigned order did not address the order’s constitutionality, and further lawsuits are expected. > Rick Hasen, UCLA law professor, said the ruling “doesn’t necessarily mean anything in terms of November.” > Derek Muller, Notre Dame law professor, warned that the decision places courts in a difficult position so close to the election.
Officials responsible for administering elections, many of whom work in small local offices, said they are left with limited options to adjust procedures on such short notice.