Supreme Court blocks new mail-in ballot rules for November election

With the Nov. 3 midterm elections approaching, the U.S. Supreme Court has left in place a lower court order blocking new U.S. Postal Service requirements for mail-in ballots.

The decision means the new requirements, mandated by U.S.P.S., will not take effect for the 2026 midterm elections.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on March 31, 2026, directing federal agencies to take a series of actions involving federal elections. The order directed the Department of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Social Security Administration, to compile state-by-state lists of U.S. citizens who would be 18 or older by the next federal election.

The order also directed the Postal Service to develop new requirements for election mail. USPS subsequently issued a rule requiring states and local jurisdictions to use ballot envelopes meeting new federal design requirements and to upload voter information to a federal portal. Mailings that failed to meet the requirements could be rejected and returned to election officials.

The rule required federal ballot envelopes to include an election-mail logo, be capable of being scanned by high-speed processing equipment and carry a specialized barcode unique to each voter.

Lawyers for voting-rights and civil-rights organizations challenged the requirements, arguing that it was unconstitutional and illegal and it would unfairly knock millions of qualified voters off the voting rolls, especially those voters who rely heavily on mail-in voting the most. They also maintained that it would have been impossible for election officials to properly implement the order in time for the November general election. 

Attorneys representing several of the organizations discussed the case and the Supreme Court's decision during a September 22, 2026, American Community Media news briefing.

Justin Lam, counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, said approximately one-third of Americans rely on mail ballots to vote. He said the new requirements would have required personal voter information to be uploaded to a new and untested federal online portal.

The federal government defended the rule, arguing that the U.S. Postal Service has broad statutory authority to regulate the preparation and delivery of mail. USPS said the requirements were intended to facilitate enforcement of federal law, reduce the risk of fraud and protect the integrity of federal elections.

USPS also maintained that states, not the Postal Service, would continue to determine voter eligibility and control their voter registration rolls.

The legal challenges ultimately resulted in a nationwide preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts preventing the new USPS rule from taking effect.

The federal government asked the Supreme Court to stay that injunction while the case continued.

On September 14, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the government's request, leaving the preliminary injunction in place. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

For voters, the immediate result is that the new USPS requirements remain blocked for the November election.

Niyati Shah, senior legal director at Asian Americans Advancing Justice, called the decision an important victory for voters.

"Thankfully, the Supreme Court left intact the lower court ruling that prevented USPS and the Trump administration from wreaking havoc with mail ballots for the 2026 midterm elections," Shah said.

She said the decision was particularly important for people who depend on mail ballots, including elderly voters, people with disabilities, residents of rural areas, students away at college and voters who need language assistance.

John Cusick, assistant counsel for the Legal Defense Fund, said the plaintiffs argued that Congress had never given the Postal Service the authority contained in the new rule. He also said the short period available for implementing the requirements created serious concerns.

"I think it is very clear that the only thing this rule was guaranteed to stop was lawful votes," Cusick said.

He noted that the American Postal Workers Union raised concerns about whether postal workers had sufficient training and resources to implement the requirements.

Election officials also raised concerns about the timing and implementation of the new system. Attorneys challenging the rule argued that some states and counties would have been unable to comply with the requirements in the limited time before the November election.

Ethan Herenstein, a staff attorney with the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the immediate implications for voters are straightforward.

"Despite these various twists and turns over the months, the bottom line for the November elections is simple: the new USPS restrictions are blocked," Herenstein said. "USPS cannot use them to refuse to deliver mail ballots and mail voting remains safe and reliable to use."

The Supreme Court's action did not resolve the underlying litigation over the legality of the USPS rule. The preliminary injunction remains in effect while the legal dispute continues.

Herenstein said the organizations involved in the case would continue their work "on a nonpartisan basis to ensure that elections remain free and fair."

Lam said the case also raised broader questions about the respective roles of the federal government, Congress and the states in administering elections.

"Our Constitution remains the same, and it remains clear about the fact that states and Congress run our elections, not the president," Lam said.

He called the court action "a victory for voters" and encouraged voters to make plans now for how they intend to cast their ballots in the November election.

For further information and voting assistance, voters can contact the following

Election Protection hotlines:

English: 1-866-OUR-VOTE

Asian-language assistance: 1-888-API-VOTE

Spanish: 1-888-VE-Y-VOTA

Arabic: 1-844-YALLA-US