The Supreme Court declined on Sept. 14 to block a nationwide injunction preventing the U.S. Postal Service from implementing a rule affecting federal ballot mail, leaving the rule on hold for the 2026 midterms.
The unsigned order in USPS v. California said the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the district court’s ruling and that the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief do not favor a stay.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
The rule and the injunction
The USPS published a final rule on Aug. 26 implementing Section 3 of President Trump’s executive order 14399. That provision would assign federal agencies a larger role in who receives a mailed ballot and how those ballots are processed.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts issued an order on Sept. 4 blocking the mandatory parts of the rule, extending a temporary restraining order she had granted on Aug. 27. The Trump administration filed an emergency application on Sept. 6 asking the Supreme Court to pause that ruling while the case proceeds.
The court’s Sept. 14 order declines to do so.
The legal significance
The Supreme Court’s order is not a ruling on the merits of the underlying dispute about the USPS rule. It is a ruling on whether to grant emergency relief from the injunction. The court found the government is unlikely to prevail on the merits when the injunction is fully argued but did not finally resolve the question.
The lower court order therefore remains in place through the 2026 midterm election cycle. Whether the courts ultimately uphold or strike down the rule will depend on further proceedings, and any injunction could be modified or dissolved at those stages.
The stakes
The USPS rule and the executive order it implements concern the administration of mail-in voting, which has been a focus of significant litigation and legislative activity since the 2020 election. Federal control over which voters receive mailed ballots and how the Postal Service processes those ballots would represent a significant expansion of federal involvement in election administration, which has historically been a state function.
The lower court order prevents that expansion while the legal challenge proceeds. The Supreme Court’s refusal to pause it means the existing state-centered framework remains in place for the upcoming midterm cycle.
