After a Yearlong Campaign to Restrict Mail Voting and Repeated Emergency Trips to a Friendly Supreme Court, Trump Was Finally Told No: the Court Left Judge Talwani's Block in Place, Refusing to Let His USPS Mail-Ballot Rule Take Effect for the 2026 Midterms — Finding the Administration Unlikely to Win and, Per Kavanaugh, That Imposing the Rushed Rule Now Would Be "Arbitrary and Capricious"; Only Thomas and Alito Publicly Dissented
On September 14, 2026, the Supreme Court refused to let Trump's mail-voting restrictions take effect for the 2026 midterm elections — leaving in place the preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani and denying the administration's emergency bid to lift it. The practical result: voters will not face the new hurdles this fall. The Court's majority said the administration was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring, allowed that there is "at least a fair prospect" the USPS rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority, but concluded that applying it in the 2026 elections "would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections" — precisely the rushed, unworkable timeline that a whistleblower, the states, and Judge Talwani had all warned about. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly dissented; no other justice disclosed a vote to let the rule proceed. This is a defeat for Trump, and a notable one: the same Court that in August lifted an earlier injunction in his favor declined, weeks later, to clear his signature voter-suppression scheme in time for the election it was built for. The rule would have required states to upload voter lists to USPS and meet new ballot-envelope and barcode requirements, letting the Postal Service withhold ballots from voters not on a federal database. For this election, it is dead.