{"id":2661461,"date":"2026-09-15T08:18:44","date_gmt":"2026-09-15T12:18:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignscotus-blocks-trumps-mail-in-voting-order-ahead-of-midterms\/"},"modified":"2026-09-15T08:20:37","modified_gmt":"2026-09-15T12:20:37","slug":"utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignscotus-blocks-trumps-mail-in-voting-order-ahead-of-midterms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/utm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignscotus-blocks-trumps-mail-in-voting-order-ahead-of-midterms\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Blocks Trump&#8217;s Mail-In Voting Order Ahead Of Midterms"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">18<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Futm_sourcerssutm_mediumrssutm_campaignscotus-blocks-trumps-mail-in-voting-order-ahead-of-midterms%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2661461&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>The U.S.Supreme Court declined to pause a lower court\u2019s ruling blocking President Trump\u2019s mail-in voting executive order ahead of the 2026 midterms, with a 7-2 vote. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.The Court rejected the Trump administration\u2019s emergency request to stay a September 4 decision by District Judge Indira Talwani, who had issued a preliminary injunction against the USPS\u2019s new rule linked to the mail-in voting order. The rule required election officials to submit ballot design details and voter facts for approval via a USPS portal. The administration had initially appealed a temporary restraining order but withdrew and filed a new application to halt the injunction. Previously, the Court had overturned another injunction against Trump\u2019s order, noting that challenges were premature.The recent decision indicated the government\u2019s likelihood of success was slim,and delaying the rule\u2019s implementation was justified due to practical concerns for election officials. Justice Kavanaugh expressed that the rule might be within Postal Service authority but applying it to the 2026 elections could be arbitrary. In dissent, Alito and Thomas argued that the challengers lacked standing and that the administration had met the criteria for a stay, criticizing the procedural delays and legal interpretations used to block the order. Alito emphasized the broad statutory authority of the Postal Service and the limited scope for ultra vires claims, asserting the states&#8217; claims were unlikely to succeed and that the government would sustain irreparable harm if the injunction remained. Both Justices believed the timing and delays caused by litigation and courts were partly responsible for the situation, and that the equities should favor pausing the injunction.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>The U.S. Supreme Court declined to pause a lower court blockade on Monday night against President Trump\u2019s mail-in voting executive order ahead of the 2026 midterms. The vote was presumably 7-2, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting.<\/p>\n<p>In its <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/25pdf\/26a305_4g15.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">unsigned opinion<\/a>, the high court rejected the Trump administration\u2019s emergency application to stay a Sept. 4 decision by Massachusetts-based District Judge <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/tag\/indira-talwani\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Indira Talwani<\/a>. The Obama appointee and past <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2025\/04\/15\/judge-blocking-trumps-deportation-of-foreign-nationals-donated-to-barack-obama-elizabeth-warren\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Democrat donor<\/a> issued a preliminary injunction blocking part of the U.S. Postal Service\u2019s new policy that complies with the president\u2019s mail-in voting order. The USPS rule \u201cwould require election officials to submit ballot-envelope designs for approval and upload voter information and unique tracking barcodes to a new USPS portal,\u201d as described by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/politics\/obama-appointed-judge-ripped-blocking-trump-mail-ballot-rule-run-out-clock\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Fox News<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The preliminary injunction replaced a temporary restraining order Talwani had issued against the new rule days prior. The Trump administration \u2014 which initially appealed the TRO to SCOTUS \u2014 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/2026\/09\/trump-administration-again-appeals-mail-in-ballot-dispute-to-the-supreme-court\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">withdrew<\/a> its initial application over the TRO and filed a new one asking the high court to pause Talwani\u2019s injunction.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court previously <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2026\/08\/24\/scotus-overturns-injunction-on-trumps-mail-in-voting-order\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">overturned<\/a> a separate injunction by Talwani against Trump\u2019s mail-in voting order last month. In a 6-3 ruling, the high court ruled that it was too soon for courts to consider the challenge brought by Democrat-led states and D.C. because the administration had yet to issue rules at that time, as required by the president\u2019s edict. <\/p>\n<p>The challengers \u2014 which also <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/twitter-lost-its-way-on-free-speech-right-when-donald-trump-entered-national-politics\/\" title=\"Twitter Lost Its Way On Free Speech Right When Donald Trump Entered National Politics\">included left-wing groups<\/a> like the League of Women Voters \u2014 then amended their lawsuits after the Postal Service published its rule, prompting Talwani\u2019s latest blockade against the order.<\/p>\n<p>In its short ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the Trump administration \u201cis unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge\u201d to Talwani\u2019s injunction. The majority further contended that \u201cthe equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a separate opinion explaining that the preliminary briefing on the case indicates \u201cthere is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service\u2019s statutory authority.\u201d He ultimately decided to deny the government\u2019s application, however, because he believes that \u201capplying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Writing on behalf of Thomas and himself in dissent, Alito argued that SCOTUS \u201cincorrectly\u201d decided the issue because \u201c[s]ome of the plaintiffs lack standing, while the remainder are pursuing a claim that this Court has recently called a \u2018\u201dHail Mary pass\u201d\u2018 that \u2018\u201drarely succeeds.\u201d\u2018\u201d He further contended that the Trump administration \u201chas made the showings necessary for a stay.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Bush 43 appointee went on to dissect why the left-wing organizations challenging the USPS rule \u201clikely lack standing\u201d to bring their suit. He said, for example, that the groups\u2019 claim that the directive \u201csupposedly thwarts their ability to educate members about voting\u201d falls flat because it \u201cis based on \u2018\u201da setback to the organization\u2019s abstract social interests\u201d\u2018 and an effort to \u2018spend its way into standing simply by expending money to gather information and advocate against the defendant\u2019s action[s].&#8217;\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Alito then turned to exploring why the Democrat states\u2019 claims \u201care unlikely to succeed.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>\u201cThey claim the rule violates the Elections Clause. \u2026 This claim, however, collapses into an inquiry about whether the Postal Service has statutory authority to promulgate the rule,\u201d Alito wrote. \u201cEven assuming the rule here is a regulation of elections, Congress may create such rules under the Elections Clause. And, by statute, it may authorize the Postal Service to issue such rules. Because litigants cannot convert claims that a federal entity has \u201cacted in excess of [its] statutory authority\u201d into constitutional claims \u2026 the crux of the dispute is whether the Postal Service has statutory authority to issue the rule.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Alito noted that, in order to bring a claim against an agency that it went beyond its statutory authority, a challenger \u201cneeds a cause of action,\u201d which is sustained by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). He detailed how the problem for challengers in this case is that \u201cCongress broadly exempted \u2018the exercise of the powers of the Postal Service\u2019 from review under the APA\u201d and \u201cchanneled many claims\u201d against the agency \u201cto initial review before the Postal Regulatory Commission followed by review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cUnsurprisingly,\u201d Alito wrote, \u201cthe statutory claim here is not subject to APA review. It is a challenge to the scope of the Postal Service\u2019s general rulemaking authority and therefore exempt from the APA.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Bush 43 appointee described how the states\u2019 inability to proceed under the APA means \u201cthey must instead invoke \u2026 an <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/ultra_vires\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ultra vires claim<\/a>,\u201d which he noted SCOTUS has \u201cstrictly limited\u201d to a slim \u201cset of circumstances.\u201d He assessed that such a \u201cHail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here\u201d because the USPS has broad authority to regulate the mail.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIn sum, the plaintiff States\u2019 statutory claim is based on a contestable reading of a broadly drawn statute empowering the Postal Service to regulate the mail. Given that the plaintiff States advance an ultra vires claim, the Government must show only that the agency\u2019s interpretation of the statute is not \u2018\u201dpatently a misconstruction,\u201d\u2018\u201d Alito wrote. \u201cI express no view on whether the Government would be likely to succeed on <em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/de_novo\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">de novo<\/a><\/em>  review of the Postal Service\u2019s powers. But for now, the Government has satisfied its burden of making a strong showing that the plaintiff States\u2019 ultra vires claim is not likely to succeed.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Alito and Thomas also agreed that the government will likely suffer irreparable harm if Talwani\u2019s injunction is allowed to remain in effect. They furthermore assessed that the \u201cremaining equitable factors\u201d favor pausing her order. <\/p>\n<p>While taking states\u2019 alleged concerns about \u201cthe practical effects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elections\u201d \u201cvery seriously,\u201d Alito wrote that they are \u201cnot enough to convince me [and Thomas] to deny the application.\u201d He pointed out how not even the challenging states agree \u201cabout the nature of these effects,\u201d and that states and the federal courts \u2014 including SCOTUS \u2014 \u201cbear a substantial share of the blame for the rule\u2019s timing.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cNot only was the Government subject to months of premature litigation and a series of injunctions that this Court later determined were likely issued without jurisdiction, the Government had to wait nearly another full month for this Court to issue its decision so holding,\u201d Alito wrote. \u201cIndeed, this Court spent from late July to the end of August drafting nearly 40 pages of opinions, including two dissents, despite the Government\u2019s public notice that it would not publish a final rule while subject to the injunctions \u2026 and its representation that it had a strong interest in issuing its rule in early-to mid-August to allow time to implement it.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe plaintiff States cannot claim the timing of the rule tilts the equities in their favor when they, and courts hearing their claims, are responsible for so much of the delay,\u201d he added. <\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>      Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court declines to halt lower court mail-in voting block<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":539,"featured_media":2661462,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Mail-Ballot.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[33651],"tags":[37054,6994,3634],"class_list":["post-2661461","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-western-journal","tag-mail-in-voting","tag-scotus","tag-trump"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/Mail-Ballot.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2661461","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/539"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2661461"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2661461\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2661465,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2661461\/revisions\/2661465"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2661462"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2661461"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2661461"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2661461"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}