Supreme Court blocks USPS mail-ballot rules amid widespread confusion

Thirty-day portal deadline conflicts with state voter registration windows

The U.S. Postal Service published its contested mail-ballot rules on Aug. 26, 2026, under a March 2026 executive order by President Donald Trump designed to ensure “integrity in federal elections,” according to a legal commentary by John J. Martin, an assistant professor of law at Quinnipiac University, republished by UPI from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

The executive order mandated that USPS implement uniform ballot and envelope requirements for mail and absentee ballots used in federal elections. It also required states to provide the Postal Service, 60 days prior to Election Day, with lists of all voters eligible to vote by mail or absentee. If a ballot sent through the mail did not comply with the Postal Service’s requirements, or was sent by someone not on a state-provided list, the order instructed USPS not to deliver the ballot, effectively canceling that vote.

Two lawsuits challenging the executive order were filed immediately in federal court, one by state officials and the other by voting rights organizations. Their arguments were that the president does not possess unilateral authority to alter the methods of voting in federal elections, citing the elections clause of the Constitution, which vests the authority to regulate the “time, place, and manner” of federal elections in the states, with Congress retaining concurrent power.

Both lawsuits were heard by the same U.S. District Court judge in Boston, who agreed with the plaintiffs and issued injunctions forbidding the president and all relevant federal officials and agencies, including USPS, from carrying out any aspects of the executive order regarding mail and absentee voting.

The lawsuit led by state officials reached the Supreme Court, which on Aug. 24, 2026, voted 6-3 along ideological lines in favor of the Trump administration. The court did not decide the constitutional issues raised in the case but found that the states lacked the injury necessary to have standing to bring the case, reasoning that because USPS had yet to implement the executive order, the states were not yet affected by it.

At the same time, USPS began writing the rules and processes governing how it would carry out the executive order. Martin wrote that these steps blatantly violated the remaining injunction in the voting rights organizations’ lawsuit. The District Court judge dissolved that injunction on Aug. 26, 2026, in light of the Supreme Court’s standing decision in the other case. That same day, USPS officially published its new rules for mail ballots.

The published rules contained three key provisions. First, states must design their ballot envelopes in accordance with USPS requirements, and the envelopes must be submitted to USPS for final approval. Second, state and local election officials must input the names of voters qualified to vote by mail or absentee into a USPS-run electronic portal at least 30 days before the date of a federal election. Third, any mailed ballot that does not adhere to the design requirements, or that is sent by somebody not on the Postal Service’s electronic portal, “will not be accepted” by USPS.

The rules produced widespread confusion among election officials, who remained uncertain about how to apply them to the 2026 midterm elections. The rules laid out no clear deadline for USPS approval of envelope designs. Some states, such as North Carolina, had already distributed mail ballots to voters under their existing procedures. Election officials in Utah were considering setting up their own distribution centers to bypass the USPS rules.

The electronic portal’s 30-day deadline also conflicted with state voter registration deadlines. All states allow individuals to register to vote at some point within 30 days of Election Day, and many allow registration far later. Martin wrote that voters who registered after the 30-day cutoff would be unable to cast mail ballots under the new rules.

After the USPS rules were published, the plaintiffs from the original two lawsuits renewed their constitutional challenge, arguing they now had standing to sue. On Sept. 4, 2026, the U.S. District Court issued a new preliminary injunction pausing the implementation or enforcement of the USPS rules, finding that USPS likely infringed upon Congress’ and the states’ elections clause powers.

The federal government petitioned the Supreme Court on Sept. 6, 2026, for a stay of that injunction. In its petition, the government contended that the USPS rules “do not unduly impede states’ administration of elections” but rather “impose reasonable preparation requirements for certain election-related mail.”

The petition elicited 20 amicus briefs, largely in opposition to the USPS rules. One brief was signed by seven Republican chief election officials detailing the impracticality of the rules.

On Sept. 14, 2026, the Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold the preliminary injunction, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting. In one brief paragraph, the court stated that the federal government “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge.” Martin wrote that the language suggests a supermajority of the court believes USPS exceeded its constitutional authority.

Given that the litigation remains ongoing in District Court, the Supreme Court did not issue any final decision on the merits of the parties’ constitutional claims. The ruling does, however, likely settle the question of whether the USPS rules will have any impact on the midterm elections in November. With less than two months until Election Day and a preliminary injunction in effect with the Supreme Court’s endorsement, the federal government’s hands are tied until the litigation plays out. By the time a final ruling issues, the country may already be looking ahead toward the 2028 presidential election, according to Martin’s commentary.

This reporting draws on a “Voices” commentary by John J. Martin, an assistant professor of law at Quinnipiac University, republished by UPI from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. The views and opinions expressed in the commentary are solely those of the author.