Trump Asks Supreme Court to Revive Mail-Ballot Restrictions Before Midterms
Newsweek · C · trust 55/100
0 Share Newsweek is a Trust Project member See more of our trusted coverage when you search. Prefer Newsweek on Google to see more of our trusted coverage when you search. Ahead of the November midterms , the Trump administration returned to the U.S. Supreme Court on Sunday seeking emergency intervention in its escalating legal fight over mail-in voting, asking the justices to allow contested U.S. Postal Service ballot restrictions to take effect immediately.
The filing follows a federal judge's decision Friday to block the plan indefinitely while lower-court litigation continues.
The dispute has emerged as one of the highest-stakes legal battles of this year's election cycle. It centers on how millions of Americans cast ballots as control of Congress hangs in the balance. Nearly one-third of U.S. voters cast ballots by mail in the 2024 presidential election, according to federal data, making the outcome critical for election administrators, political parties, and voters. Mail voting is heavily utilized in several closely watched battleground and Western states that could determine congressional majorities.
This is the third time the Trump administration has asked the high court to intervene. The court previously lifted an injunction against the administration's executive order on procedural grounds but has not ruled on whether the mail-ballot restrictions themselves are lawful.
Newsweek reached out to the White House on Sunday.
Related Story Judge Again Blocks Trump Mail Ballot Rule: What We Know A Race Against the Calendar In an emergency application, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the high court to lift a block that was imposed Friday by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani.
Talwani, an Obama-era appointee, concluded that challengers—including Democratic-led states and voting rights groups—were likely to succeed in arguing that the Postal Service policy intrudes upon powers reserved for states and Congress under the Constitution.
Carl Tobias, the Williams Chair in Law at the University of Richmond, told Newsweek on Sunday that Talwani "has the better of the argument" because the Constitution assigns responsibility for elections to Congress and the states rather than the executive branch. Tobias noted that Talwani rejected the administration's argument that the Postal Service was acting under congressional authority, writing that Congress "has never delegated its Elections Clause power to the USPS" and that the rule "clashes with Congress' statutory scheme."
The Trump administration, however, maintains that the rules are routine postal regulations designed to improve election integrity and do not constitute an unlawful federal takeover of elections.
A central question in the litigation is whether changes can realistically be implemented before Election Day. North Carolina and Wisconsin have already begun mailing absentee ballots, with additional states scheduled to follow in the coming days. Once ballots enter the mailstream, they generally cannot be recalled or modified, increasing pressure on courts to act quickly.
The administration argued in its filing that each day the injunction remains in place deepens confusion, as local election officials continue preparing ballots under existing systems rather than the proposed federal standards.
Opponents counter that altering procedures so close to Election Day threatens significant logistical disruption for offices that have spent months preparing for the midterms. Critics say states would have little time to redesign ballot envelopes, secure federal approvals and integrate a new Postal Service verification system before voters begin casting ballots. Several election experts previously told Newsweek that even a legal victory for the administration might arrive too late to meaningfully alter how many states administer mail voting this year.
Don Millis, the Republican chairman of Wisconsin's elections commission, told The Washington Post there was "no practical way" for Wisconsin election officials to comply with the proposed requirements before the midterms.
The legal battle carries profound political implications for November, with control of Congress at stake. Republicans are defending their legislative majorities, while Democrats aim to capitalize on political headwinds facing the administration to make gains in the House and Senate.
A Democratic victory in either chamber would grant the party control of committee agendas and subpoena power, strengthening oversight and opening new avenues for investigation.
The partisan intensity surrounding the midterms was underscored Sunday when Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said on NBC News' Meet the Press that Trump has "undoubtedly" committed impeachable offenses and is "continually defying Congress." His comments highlighted how a shift in congressional control could reshape the final two years of the president's term.
The administration has defended the mail-ballot restrictions as commonsense safeguards meant to bolster public confidence in elections. Trump has long argued that mail ballots are vulnerable to fraud, though studies and investigations have found such cases to be rare.
Critics contend the restrictions create unnecessary barriers to voting and represent an unconstitutional expansion of executive authority into an area traditionally managed by the states.
The Supreme Court faces mounting pressure to act quickly as ballots continue to reach voters nationwide. The justices' next move will determine not only how mail ballots are handled in the closing weeks of the campaign, but whether one of the administration's signature election-security initiatives survives.
Contact Newsweek editor for this story: Anthony Murray .
Read the original at Newsweek →
Open in TruthVane →