The Supreme Court on Monday, August 24, cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting to move forward, though the extent of its implementation before the upcoming midterm elections remains uncertain. This decision may still allow for further legal challenges that could delay the order’s full effect.
The U.S. Postal Service outlined its plan for implementing the order last week, but with some states preparing to send mail ballots to voters in a few weeks, time is short for significant changes. The Justice Department had filed an emergency appeal requesting the high court permit work on these changes before the midterms.
President Trump signed the executive order in March, directing his administration to create lists of eligible voters and instructing the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to individuals on those lists. Democratic officials from 23 states and the District of Columbia initiated a lawsuit to block the order, arguing that the Constitution grants states and Congress the authority to manage elections, and that the proposed changes could lead to disorder and partisan misuse.
Attorneys for the states emphasized the extreme consequences of allowing such transformative changes to take effect so close to the fall elections. Numerous state and local election officials also urged the justices to keep the order frozen while election preparations were already underway.
Previously, a Massachusetts judge blocked the plan for the midterm elections in those states, a decision upheld by an appeals court. The judge later issued a second order extending the block nationwide. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court in late July on procedural grounds, contending that the states had sued prematurely. They also cited a separate ruling from Washington, where a judge permitted Trump’s order to proceed, a decision an appeals court supported while leaving room for future court action if changes are implemented.
Federal attorneys argued that the Massachusetts order impeded the government’s ability to finalize and implement the President’s proposed policies for election integrity in the upcoming federal elections in November. A dozen Republican-leaning states supported the federal government’s appeal, stating that states would have input on the final voter lists.
The Supreme Court previously ruled against Trump-backed arguments on mail-in ballots in June, finding that states can count ballots arriving after Election Day. That case was decided after full briefing and arguments, unlike the current case which was handled on the court’s emergency docket.
President Trump has attributed his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden to mail voting, without credible evidence. He has promoted the changes in his executive order as safeguards against non-U.S. citizens voting and has repeatedly advocated for legislation requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Noncitizen voting is rare and is a felony punishable by deportation.
Mail ballots have become increasingly popular, with federal data showing approximately 30 percent of all ballots cast this way during the 2024 presidential election. The process is also secure; a 2025 Brookings Institution study found only about four cases of fraud for every 10 million mail ballots cast.