Trump Takes Mail-Ballot Restrictions Back to Supreme Court as Midterm Voting Begins

The Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revive new nationwide restrictions on mail ballots just as North Carolina begins sending the first absentee ballots of the 2026 midterm elections.

The Justice Department asked the Court Thursday, September 3, to lift a federal judge’s temporary order blocking a new U.S. Postal Service rule that would require states to provide lists of mail-ballot recipients and use specially approved envelopes carrying unique barcodes.

The Postal Service could return ballots that fail to meet the requirements or are addressed to voters whose names do not appear on state-provided lists. The administration says the system is intended to prevent voter fraud and protect the federal mail system. States and voting-rights groups argue it could prevent legitimate ballots from reaching eligible voters and exceeds federal authority over elections.

The timing has raised the stakes of the emergency appeal. North Carolina begins mailing absentee ballots Friday, September 4, becoming the first state to send ballots for the November 3 general election. Other states will follow throughout September, and many election offices have already printed their ballots and envelopes.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson directed opponents of the rule to respond by 10 a.m. Eastern time on September 8, leaving the Supreme Court positioned to act within days.

The case, United States Postal Service v. California, is the second time the dispute has reached the justices in less than two weeks.

The first trip to the Supreme Court did not decide whether the mail-ballot requirements were lawful.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston initially blocked portions of President Donald Trump’s mail-voting executive order in June. The Supreme Court lifted that injunction on August 24 after finding problems with the states’ standing and the timing of a lawsuit filed before the Postal Service had issued its final rule.

The justices left states free to return to court once there was a final regulation to challenge.

A final rule now exists, putting the Postal Service requirements themselves more directly before the courts.

The dispute stems from an executive order Trump signed in March directing federal agencies to impose new requirements on mail voting.

Under the system later developed by the Postal Service, states would submit information identifying voters receiving absentee or mail ballots. Outbound and return ballot envelopes would carry unique barcodes tied to that information, allowing postal officials to check ballot mail against voter lists.

The final Postal Service rule took effect August 21 and was published in the Federal Register on August 26.

Questions about whether the system is ready to operate have become a major part of the renewed legal fight.

At a Thursday hearing, Talwani repeatedly questioned a Justice Department lawyer about the online portal states would need to use to submit their voter information.

The government could not tell the judge that the entire system was operational.

“I don’t even have a declaration from the Postal Service: ‘This is how it will work,’” Talwani said, according to the Associated Press.

She later characterized the government's rollout as an “experiment” to determine whether the system could work during the upcoming election.

A Postal Service official said in a court filing that the agency was continuing to refine the portal and that a version could become available next week for states that voluntarily choose to use it.

The government told the court that states could voluntarily opt into the system, but the Postal Service had not identified a state that had done so as of Thursday.

North Carolina officials said the state would proceed with mailing ballots Friday. The Postal Service had already approved its envelope design, and election officials said they were monitoring the litigation.

States and voting-rights organizations challenging the rule argue that the federal government cannot condition delivery of election mail on compliance with a new federal voter-verification system.

The Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections while allowing Congress to regulate certain aspects of federal elections. The challengers argue that the Postal Service rule goes beyond federal authority and interferes with procedures states have already established.

The administration maintains that states choosing to use the federal mail system must comply with Postal Service requirements.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that states cannot use the federal mail system to conduct elections while claiming their ballot mail is exempt from Postal Service rules governing envelopes and addressing.

After the Supreme Court lifted Talwani’s first injunction, states and voting-rights groups quickly returned to court to challenge the finalized regulation.

Talwani issued another temporary order on August 27 blocking the rule for 14 days. She found that the challengers were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims and raised concerns about requiring major changes to state election procedures as voting was about to begin.

The administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and asked that court to suspend her order. It then filed its emergency application with the Supreme Court without waiting for the appeals court to rule.

The new application puts a different dispute before the justices. The August case focused heavily on whether the states had gone to court before there was a final Postal Service rule. The latest challenge targets the final regulation and how the agency plans to enforce it.

The rollout has also drawn scrutiny over what would happen when information does not match.

Opponents warn that errors involving voter names, addresses, barcodes or government databases could interfere with legitimate ballot mail.

A Postal Service whistleblower alleged this week that flaws in the developing system could cause compliant ballots to be rejected along with ballots containing errors. According to the Associated Press, the whistleblower warned that a barcode error involving one ballot could result in an entire batch being rejected.

The concern comes as election offices have little time to change procedures already in place for November.

Courts have generally been reluctant to require significant changes to election rules close to voting, another issue looming over the emergency application as more states prepare to send ballots.

The administration is asking the Supreme Court to suspend Talwani’s order while the legality of the Postal Service rule is litigated in the lower courts.

If the justices grant the request, the Postal Service could begin enforcing its voter-list and barcode requirements as states send ballots for the November 3 election. If the order remains in place, states can continue using their existing procedures while the courts consider whether the federal government has authority to impose the new system.

Responses are due at the Supreme Court on September 8.

Mail voting for the 2026 midterms begins Friday while the federal rules governing how those ballots move through the postal system remain unresolved.