The Supreme Court “Sided With Trump” on Mail Voting, and Then Blocked His Rule. Both Headlines Were True. Here Is What Applies in November.

What we found

• Trump's March 2026 executive order directs the Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to voters on lists submitted by state election officials, and asks for federal lists of eligible voters [1][2][4].
• June: U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani (Boston) blocked key provisions in a case brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia, writing that the order was “an unconstitutional attempt to usurp powers from the states over elections” [1][5].
• Aug. 11: in a separate case brought by voting-rights groups, a federal court blocked the Postal Service section of the order [6].
• Aug. 24: the Supreme Court lifted Talwani's injunction on narrow grounds. It did not decide whether the order is legal. NPR described an unsigned order from the conservative majority with the three liberal justices dissenting; The Conversation reported 6–3. The Court said the states' challenge was premature because much of the order had not yet been carried out. Justice Jackson dissented, warning of a “Kafkaesque nightmare” [2][3]. The Court also said its order “does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful” [4].
• Aug. 26 to Sept. 4: the Postal Service issued a 95-page proposal. It would require states to use a new federal system for voter mail-ballot lists, and ballot envelopes would need unique barcodes checked by the Postal Service. Talwani issued a temporary restraining order on Aug. 27 and a preliminary injunction on Sept. 4 [1].
• Sept. 14: in U.S. Postal Service v. California (No. 26A305) the Supreme Court denied the administration's request to put the injunction on hold. The Court said the government “is unlikely to succeed on the merits” and that the equities “do not favor a stay.” Justice Kavanaugh agreed in a one-paragraph concurrence, writing that even if the Postal Service has the authority, election officials lack “sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before” the November election. Justices Alito and Thomas dissented [7][8]. Around the same time, Judge Carl Nichols (Washington, D.C.), who had declined to act in May, blocked the rules in a separate case [1][9].
• Current status (as of the sources we read, through mid-September): the Postal Service rule is not in effect for the November election. Litigation over permanent relief continues [1][7].

We rate it Misleading as a description of where things stand. The August headline was accurate on the day, but it is superseded: the Court's later order is what applies to November, and the August ruling never decided whether the order is legal. It was also less of a win in practice than it sounded, because a separate injunction already blocked the Postal Service section [2][6].

What we still don't know

• What will courts decide on the federal voter-list and citizenship-check provisions? We haven't read those rulings. We also saw search-result reports that the Aug. 24 order cleared the way for a federal citizenship list; we did not confirm that.
• Will the Postal Service rule be allowed after the midterms? That is not decided.
• Has anything changed since mid-September? Our newest court source is the Sept. 14 order and the Votebeat tracker updated that day.
• The exact date of Judge Nichols' ruling: reports place it on or just before Sept. 14, and we did not read the opinion.

Sources

Book connection: Love & Hate. Two accurate headlines, each read through a team lens, can leave opposite impressions. Here is the sequence. Found an error? Corrections policy · Submit a claim