Supreme Court rejects Donald Trump’s attempt to limit mail voting; Maine responds

Supreme Court Repeals Trump‑Era Plan to Control Mail Ballots, Clearing Path for 2026 Elections

WASHINGTON — In a late‑Monday ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s effort to give the U.S. Postal Service authority to bar states from mailing absentee ballots unless they complied with a new federal envelope format and voter‑list requirement. The decision, announced at 10 a.m. EDT, effectively preserves the current practice of sending and receiving mail ballots as states have done in every election since 2020.

The ruling clears up a lingering uncertainty that had loomed over this year’s midterms. The dispute began when Trump signed an executive order in March that would have forced states to adopt a single envelope style for mailed ballots and to submit lists of eligible voters to a federal online portal. Under that framework, the Postal Service could refuse to deliver ballots to states that did not follow the new rules. A whistleblower report, released by the Post Office, warned that the new requirements could cause millions of ballots to be withheld, potentially disenfranchising a large share of voters in the 2026 congressional election.

“Voters can rest assured that they have all of the same options for absentee voting—including receiving and returning their ballot by mail—that they have had in every other election,” Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said in a statement. “This is good news for voters and for democracy.”

A Decision That Leaves Mail Voting Unchanged

The Supreme Court’s decision was a “win for the status quo,” the court’s opinion said, rejecting the administration’s attempt to shift control of mail ballot distribution to the Postal Service. The ruling came after a series of rapid lower‑court rulings, appeals, and an ongoing legal tangle that had left election officials in many states unsure about what rules would apply.

“The decision is a victory for Oregonians, the right to vote, and the rule of law,” Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read told reporters. “This provides voters and elections officials with the certainty they need ahead of a major, federal election, and it sends a clear message to this country: Presidents don’t run elections, the people do.”

Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson, who serves as the state’s chief election officer, echoed that sentiment: “Utahns can have confidence that the 2026 election will proceed as normal.” Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar described the ruling as “one of relief, but also excitement,” noting that the decision “today the voters really won across America.” He added that while some damage had already been done by false claims about mail ballots, the ruling offers a chance to rebuild trust: “You can trust the process. Please participate.”

The decision is especially significant for the eight states that have largely shifted to mail voting—California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. In those jurisdictions, the prospect of having to scramble to adopt a new envelope standard and a federal portal so close to a general election was seen as “chaotic” and “almost impossible to pull off.” The court’s ruling therefore removes a potential obstacle that could have undermined the integrity of mail voting in those states.

Legal Context and Supreme Court Rationale

Trump’s executive order had already been blocked by lower courts. The Supreme Court rejected the administration’s attempt to stay those decisions, even as three justices—Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas—expressed varying degrees of willingness to allow the plan to take effect in the current or future elections. In contrast, the majority noted that the administration was “unlikely to succeed on the merits” in defending its plan.

“The court didn’t have to explain that it was disinclined to side with the government on the merits, but it did,” noted Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame. “That language is a sign for the future.”

David Becker, a former U.S. Department of Justice lawyer who now runs the Center for Election Innovation & Research, said the executive order would have done little for election integrity while imposing a costly new bureaucracy. “Implementing Trump’s executive order would have disenfranchised voters,” he said. “The majority’s language about the merits of the case means it is unlikely these rules will ever apply to any election.”

Moving Forward

With the decision in hand, election officials across the country are poised to resume normal operations. Mail voting is already underway in several states, and the ruling removes the last legal hurdle that could have disrupted the process. The court’s decision also clears the