Alito and Thomas call challenge a ‘Hail Mary pass’
Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani imposed an injunction on 4 September blocking President Donald Trump’s March executive order on mail-in voting, ruling that implementing the measures close to November’s elections could disenfranchise voters. Her order temporarily blocked the US Postal Service from moving forward with new requirements for postal ballots. On Monday, the US Supreme Court declined to lift Talwani’s injunction, in a setback for the White House.
Monday’s order is unlikely to be the final word on the matter. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, agreed with the ruling but indicated he might later side with Trump as litigation in the case continues. He wrote that there was “at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority.” Applying the rule in the 2026 elections, Kavanaugh added, “would be arbitrary and capricious.”
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, also conservatives, dissented. They wrote that the challenge to Trump’s order was a “Hail Mary pass” that was “unlikely to be successful ultimately.” “The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail,” they added.
Trump signed the executive order in March, directing USPS to deliver ballots only to voters on lists of citizens. The order also would have required USPS to introduce unique barcodes on postal ballot envelopes and would have required state and local election officials to supply information to an online portal about voters receiving mail ballots. Trump argued the rules would combat electoral fraud.
Twenty-three states and Washington DC sued to stop the order, arguing the move violated states’ constitutional rights to run elections. The postal workers’ union separately said clerks could not be trained on the new procedures in time for the midterm elections.
In court filings, the Trump administration maintained the new USPS rules were constitutional. It said states “cannot choose to use the federal mails to carry out their elections but then insist that their election-related mail is somehow exempt from the Postal Service’s rule-making authority, conferred by Congress.”
Last week, a US appeals court refused to put Talwani’s order on hold. On Sunday, another federal judge, Judge Carl Nichols, also ruled against the Trump administration’s order.
Monday’s order is not the first Supreme Court setback for Trump on postal voting. In June, the justices ruled that states may count ballots postmarked by election day, rejecting the administration’s push to block votes being tallied when they are received after polls close.
About 30 percent of voters, mostly Democrats, cast postal ballots in the 2024 general election. Since returning to the White House, Trump has sought to restrict voting by mail, even as he himself has voted by post. He has long claimed that the method allows non-citizens to cast ballots and is prone to fraud, and he has previously made false claims that he lost the 2020 election owing to widespread electoral fraud.
Some states have already begun distributing mail-in ballots ahead of the midterm elections, which will decide which party controls Congress. The White House did not immediately comment on Monday’s decision.