The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to overturn lower court rulings that blocked sweeping restrictions on mail-in voting, a move that could affect millions of voters in nearly half the country just months before the November midterm elections. The Justice Department's emergency appeal seeks to implement an executive order that would fundamentally reshape how Americans cast ballots by mail.
Trump ordered the government in March to create a "state citizenship list" of eligible voters and deliver mail ballots only to people on that list. The directive also instructs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to send state officials federal citizenship lists to determine eligible voters. It tells the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on the lists, and it calls for ballots to have secure envelopes with unique barcodes for tracking. States and localities that don't comply could lose federal funding.
23 States Challenge Federal Overreach
Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia sued, arguing the Constitution gives states and Congress—not the president—the authority to set election rules. Their attorneys said Trump's proposed changes are ripe for abuse and could cause chaos. U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani in Boston, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, agreed in June to halt implementation for the Nov. 3 elections. A divided 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel left her ruling in place over the weekend.
The administration's appeal argues that Trump's order lays out "general policy guidance" and doesn't directly dictate how states run their elections. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the high court to freeze the judge's order as lawsuits play out, calling it indefensible. "And the injunction is especially indefensible because the agencies are still deliberating over how (if at all) to implement the Order, yet the district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful," Sauer wrote.
Tight Timeline for Implementation
Sauer urged the high court to move quickly, arguing that any new policies would have to be in place as soon as August to be effective for the November elections. A response to the appeal is due Aug. 3. The compressed timeline has raised concerns among election officials and voting rights advocates about the potential for confusion and disenfranchisement.
Trump has promoted the proposed changes in his executive order as safeguards to keep non-U.S. citizens from voting. He's also repeatedly pressed for the passage of legislation that requires proof of citizenship to vote. Noncitizen voting has been shown to be rare, and is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.
Split Among Federal Courts
The Supreme Court has ruled against the Trump administration before on mail-in ballots, finding in June that states can count ballots that arrive after Election Day. Judge Talwani's ruling differed from that of another federal judge based in Washington. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed by Trump, found in May it was too early to block the order because it had not yet been implemented.
The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the lawsuit for the states, did not immediately comment on the Trump administration's appeal. New York Attorney General Letitia James' office declined to comment. The Postal Service also would not discuss its plans regarding implementing Trump's order or its rule, citing the ongoing litigation. In Kansas, Secretary of State Scott Schwab's office said it has not yet heard from the Postal Service about plans going forward.
Why This Matters:
The outcome of this case could determine whether millions of Americans face new barriers to casting their ballots by mail in the November midterms and beyond. Mail-in voting expanded dramatically during the pandemic, with voters across the political spectrum relying on it for convenience and safety. Creating federal citizenship lists and restricting who receives mail ballots introduces new bureaucratic hurdles that could disproportionately affect voters in communities with higher rates of mobility, language barriers, or limited access to government services. The timing is particularly consequential: if the Supreme Court sides with the administration, states would have mere weeks to overhaul their voting systems before ballots must be printed and mailed. Election officials have warned that such rapid changes invite errors, confusion, and the potential disenfranchisement of eligible voters who've relied on mail voting for years. The case also tests fundamental questions about presidential power over elections and whether federal authorities can impose sweeping changes on state-run voting systems.