Although the decision is not the end of the dispute faced by President Donald Trump, the litigation over the scope of presidential authority to impose new rules remains open, and one of the justices who agreed with the rejection for the 2026 elections left open the possibility that the measures could have legal backing in the future.
Trump’s interest in modifying mail-in voting lies in the fact that this system represents a significant part of the U.S. electoral process. About 47 million people, approximately 32% of the electorate, used this method in the 2024 presidential elections.
Although Trump’s criticisms of the system have been recurrent, the White House has not announced a plan to completely eliminate mail-in voting in the United States. Instead, his Administration has promoted a series of modifications to establish new federal requirements for ballots used in national elections.
The proposed regulation would have required states to provide certain voter data and to use envelopes for mail-in ballots approved by the United States Postal Service (USPS).
These envelopes would incorporate identification elements and individualized barcodes that would allow tracking of the ballots.
The proposal also contemplated that the Postal Service could refuse to send certain ballots that did not comply with the new standards or that belonged to voters not listed on the electoral rolls.
In practical terms, the initiative would have introduced uniform requirements in a system that currently operates with different rules depending on the state. The rules for requesting, sending, and counting mail-in ballots are not the same across the country, and the Administration has sought to establish common federal criteria.
The proposal was initially promoted by Trump through an executive order and later developed by the Postal Service.
The Trump Administration has presented these measures as a way to strengthen the security and integrity of mail-in voting.
The argument was supported by the president’s repeated claims about the existence of electoral fraud. Trump has continued to assert that mail-in ballots are fraudulent and that there is widespread Democratic electoral fraud.
In a post on Truth Social after the Supreme Court ruling, Trump described the U.S. system as a “totally corrupt and out-of-control disaster with mail-in voting.”
Supporters of the restrictions argue that imposing uniform requirements would strengthen the mechanisms for identifying and controlling ballots.
However, opponents of the regulation argue that the USPS would be overstepping its authority and that the new requirements could make it difficult for citizens whose ballots did not meet the new conditions to vote.
One of the main obstacles to Trump’s initiatives is that the U.S. Constitution grants the States, not the federal government, the power to organize elections.
Election officials have defended that existing procedures are proven mechanisms and that they are prepared to administer the 2026 midterm elections.
The proposal promoted by Trump enabled a discussion about the limits of federal authority to intervene in procedures that have traditionally been administered by the states.
The Supreme Court did not definitively resolve that debate, so its decision for now maintains the judicial blocks on the regulation while litigation over its legality continues.
A federal judge in Boston had previously blocked the rule, and another federal judge in Washington had done the same during the weekend prior to the Supreme Court decision. The court maintained those blocks for the 2026 elections.
The Supreme Court on Monday, September 15, rejected the Trump administration’s request to apply the new restrictions on mail-in voting in the November midterm elections.
As a result, states will be able to maintain their current procedures for sending and receiving ballots.
Some states had already begun distributing mail-in ballots when the court ruled, while preparations for the November elections were well underway.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that the new rules should not apply in the 2026 elections because states and election authorities did not have enough time to implement the changes.
Read more Innovative ideas for the dieciochero menu
But Kavanaugh left open the possibility that the regulation could have legal backing in the future. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, however, dissented from the decision.
Therefore, the ruling does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court has determined that all measures promoted by Trump are unconstitutional. What it does, for now, is prevent the new requirements from taking effect for the 2026 elections while litigation continues.
After the Court’s ruling, the current procedures of each state in the country will remain in effect during the midterm elections.
This means that voters who use mail will be able to do so under the rules that already exist in their respective States, rather than being subject to the new federal requirements promoted by the Trump Administration.
The decision also avoids a last-minute change in a system that is already in operation.
Tammy Patrick, from the Election Center, which has nearly 2,500 election officials among its members, told the AP agency that election administrators breathed a sigh of relief after the ruling because the decision removed the main threat that could have immediately disrupted voting nationwide.
Patrick and other election administrators said that the processes used for years will be maintained for the midterm elections.
“Voters should realize that the midterm elections will be safe,” Patrick said. “They will be legitimate,” she added.
In the 2024 presidential elections, approximately 47 million people voted by mail, equivalent to 32% of the electorate, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
Additionally, there is a difference in the use of this method between parties. According to the Data and Electoral Science Lab of MIT, 37% of Democrats and 24% of Republicans voted by mail in 2024.
These data help to understand why system modifications have relevant political and administrative consequences, although they do not by themselves establish the reasons why an individual voter chooses this method.
Election officials have insisted that mail-in voting is part of the usual procedures of the U.S. system and that the 2026 party primaries were conducted smoothly despite months of attacks against this method.
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told Reuters that Trump’s statements about mail-in voting have created unnecessary difficulties for local election officials.
But he also said that recent electoral processes were conducted without the problems some anticipated. When asked if Trump’s rhetoric could cause chaos in the electoral process, Becker responded: “Actually, I’m pretty sure it won’t.”
The U.S. president has repeatedly claimed that ballots sent by mail are vulnerable to widespread fraud. However, election officials and courts have repeatedly found that these claims lack evidence.
Lisa Brown, secretary of Oakland County, Michigan, and the main election administrator of that jurisdiction, noted that voters’ main concern was whether mail-in voting would remain available, not questioning its legitimacy.
When asked if she was worried that Trump was laying the groundwork to allege fraud in November if his party lost control of one or both chambers of Congress, Brown recalled the accusations made after the 2020 elections.
“In 2020 he alleged fraud. There was never any evidence of it. Those elections were accurate, secure, and fair,” she said. “He can claim whatever he wants. That does not change the security or accuracy of our process.”
For her part, Hannah Fried, executive director of All Voting Is Local, also considered that the Supreme Court’s rejection had reduced her concerns about a possible immediate disruption of the elections. “I was more afraid a year ago than now,” Fried said after the decision.
Still, she said she expected Trump to continue claiming that mail-in voting was vulnerable to widespread fraud.
