Supreme Court Allows Agencies to Proceed with Trump Mail-Ballot Regulations Pending Further Litigation
The U.S. Supreme Court lifted a lower-court block on federal agencies working on new mail-ballot rules proposed by the Trump administration, but the decision was limited to procedural matters and does not settle the legality of the measures.
The Supreme Court on Monday issued a 6-3 emergency order that permits the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Postal Service to continue developing regulations tied to President Trump’s March executive order on mail-in voting. The high court set aside a district-court injunction that had halted agency work, but it did not rule on the merits of the proposed rules.
The order, written by the six conservative justices, noted that the case remains procedural and that any future actions by the agencies may still be subject to legal challenge. The three liberal justices filed dissenting opinions, emphasizing that the decision does not resolve whether the president has authority to dictate election procedures.
White House spokesperson Lauren Bis called the ruling “a major win for the security of American elections,” describing the measures as “commonsense” safeguards for mail-in ballots. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who leads a coalition of states challenging the order, called the decision “somewhat disappointing” but “purely procedural,” saying the state will file a new lawsuit once the Postal Service finalizes its rule.
The Postal Service’s 95-page final rule, issued last week, incorporates elements of the executive order, including new ballot and envelope designs and data-collection procedures. California and other states are not required to use the citizenship lists the Department of Homeland Security is preparing, but the administration has warned that non-compliance could lead to legal consequences.
Los Angeles County registrar-recorder Dean Logan said the issue remains unsettled as the November election approaches and pledged to increase voter outreach to mitigate confusion. The court’s decision does not address the constitutional question of presidential authority over state election administration, leaving the matter for future courts to decide.