US Supreme Court backs Trump on mail voting order, legality still open

The US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move ahead with its mail voting order for now. The ruling rests on standing, leaving the order's legality and timing before the midterms uncertain.

In Short

• The court said states lacked standing, without deciding the order's legality
• Liberal justices dissented as the administration sought rapid pre-midterm implementation
• Massachusetts and Washington rulings have created conflicting judicial roadblocks and openings

The US Supreme Court on Monday sided with the Trump administration in a case over President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it is still unclear how much of the order can be put in place before the fast-approaching midterm elections. The ruling also leaves scope for fresh legal challenges that could delay the order further, even as some states are only weeks away from sending mail ballots to voters.

The court’s conservative majority did not rule on whether Trump’s order is legal. Instead, it said the states that challenged it did not have the legal right to do so. In an unsigned order, the majority said, “The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell.” The court’s three liberal-leaning justices dissented.

The Justice Department had moved the Supreme Court in an emergency appeal, seeking permission to begin work on the changes before the midterms. Trump’s executive order, signed in March, calls on his administration to create lists of eligible voters and directs the US Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. The Postal Service set out last week how it would implement the order, but the window for making major changes is narrowing.

Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia had sued to block the order, arguing that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to run elections and that Trump’s changes could cause chaos and partisan abuse. “The consequences of allowing such transformative changes to take effect so close to this fall’s elections would be extreme,” lawyers for the states told the court. Dozens of state and local election officials also urged the justices to keep the order on hold while election preparations were already underway.

A judge in Massachusetts blocked the plan for the midterm elections in those states, and an appeals court upheld that decision. She later issued a second order blocking the plan nationwide, creating another hurdle for the administration. The Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court on procedural grounds in late July, saying the states had sued too early. It also pointed to a separate ruling in Washington, where a judge allowed Trump’s order to go ahead, a decision later backed by an appeals court while still leaving room for future legal action if the changes are carried out.

Federal lawyers argued that the Massachusetts order “blocks the government’s ability to finalise and implement the President’s proposed policies to promote election integrity for the upcoming federal elections in November”. A dozen Republican-leaning states backed the federal government in their own filing before the Supreme Court, saying states would have input on the final voter lists.

Mail balloting has long been a target of Trump, who has said it leads to fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and despite his own use of the method. The Supreme Court had earlier ruled against Trump-backed arguments on mail-in ballots, holding in June that states can count ballots that arrive after Election Day. Trump has also blamed mail voting, without credible evidence, for his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden, and has presented the changes in his order as safeguards to stop non-US citizens from voting. He has repeatedly pushed legislation requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Noncitizen voting has been shown to be rare, and it is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.

Mail voting has become more common among voters of both parties, with about 30 per cent of all ballots cast that way in the 2024 presidential election, according to federal data. The process is also secure, with a 2025 Brookings Institution study finding only about four cases of fraud for every 10 million mail ballots cast. For now, the Supreme Court’s order has gone in the Trump administration’s favour, but the legality of the measures and their implementation before the midterms remain unsettled.

With PTI Inputs

- Ends