Supreme Court Declines to Revive USPS Election-Mail Rule
By Justin Riemer, President, USGI
On Monday, September 14, the Supreme Court effectively closed the door on pre-election implementation of a key component of President Trump’s Executive Order 14399, the administration’s directive on citizenship verification and mail-in voting in federal elections. At issue was a recently finalized U.S. Postal Service rulemaking that would require states to use standardized, barcoded ballot envelopes, submit voter-level mailing data to a new federal portal, and obtain USPS clearance before ballots go out. A coalition of states and progressive interest groups sued, and a Massachusetts federal district court preliminarily enjoined its enforcement. After the First Circuit did not immediately act on the government’s stay request, the Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court for a stay.
For election officials and observers, the immediate takeaway is that the USPS requirements will not govern this election cycle, but the legal fight over how far federal agencies may go in setting election-mail rules is likely to continue.
This was the second time the dispute had reached the Court. On August 24, before the USPS finalized the rule, the Court had granted the government a stay of an earlier injunction by the district court in a 6-3 vote on standing and ripeness grounds, without reaching the merits.
This time, the Court denied relief in a per curiam ruling, concluding that the government was unlikely to succeed on the merits and that the balance of equities did not favor a stay. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the denial but wrote separately that the USPS rule had “at least a fair prospect” of being lawful. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented and would have granted the stay.
Given their dissent when the Court granted the first stay, Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson almost certainly voted to deny the later stay. That means at least one of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Gorsuch and Barrett joined the denial, and probably more than one given none of them issued a dissent or joined Justice Alito’s.
The case will now continue in the district court, where the final outcome appears predictable. Still, DOJ is likely to ask the Supreme Court to review the dispute again in a less expedited posture. A related consolidated case is pending in the D.C. District Court, which preliminarily enjoined the rule on September 13.
Justice Alito’s dissent outlines one path by which the Court could eventually uphold the rulemaking. In addition to raising standing concerns for some plaintiffs, he framed the dispute as a tension between the plaintiffs’ argument that the rule intrudes on state and congressional authority under the Elections Clause and the USPS’s statutory authority “to provide for the collection, handling, transportation, delivery, forwarding, returning, and holding of mail, and for the disposition of undeliverable mail.” 39 U.S.C. § 404(a)(1).
The dissent’s more technical point is that the plaintiffs may have a cause-of-action problem. Congress has “broadly exempted” USPS from Administrative Procedure Act review, and the dissent concluded that exemption applied here. On that view, the plaintiffs would be left with only an equitable ultra vires claim, which requires showing that the agency acted “entirely in excess of the agency’s delegated powers and contrary to a specific prohibition in the statute.” The dissent described that kind of claim as “essentially a Hail Mary pass.” It is unclear, maybe even unlikely, that a majority of the Court will adopt that framework. But at least three justices appear open to it. If the case returns to the Court in a more traditional posture, watch Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett—especially once the Court no longer has to weigh the potential near-term disruption to election officials and voters that shaped the emergency stay posture.
Alaska
The Department of Law dropped charges against 11 American Samoan residents of Whittier accused of voting illegally, after the Alaska Court of Appeals held that a conviction requires proof the voter intended to deceive election officials.
The Division of Elections changed its delivery policy for the general election, rerouting absentee ballots cast at in-person rural polling stations to its Anchorage office, after 75 such ballots reached the Nome regional office too late to be counted in the August primary.
California
Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of election-related bills that creates new criminal penalties for interfering with ballots, election records, voting technology, and the delivery of vote-by-mail ballots. The package also addresses election cybersecurity, language access, drop-off locations, deceptive election communications, and procedures for voting by mail ballot at polling places.
Florida
A Russian national was sentenced to six years in federal prison for a synthetic identity fraud scheme that included submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registration applications to the Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections to create fake identities to obtain fraudulent credit cards and loans.
Minnesota
Federal prosecutors charged an Indian national with making a false claim of U.S. citizenship to vote in the 2024 general election. Prosecutors allege the man knowingly made a false citizenship statement to vote.
New Hampshire
Secretary of State Scanlan directed local officials to preserve all ballots and records from the 2024 general election, which had become eligible for destruction under the 22-month retention period, after the U.S. Department of Justice instructed the state in writing to retain them.
Ohio
Secretary of State Frank LaRose published a list of 208,856 inactive voter registrations scheduled for removal from the state’s voter rolls in January 2027 under Ohio’s General Voter Records Maintenance Program. No registrations on the list will be canceled before the November 3 general election, and voters can keep their registrations active by voting, updating or confirming their information, submitting an absentee ballot application, or engaging in another qualifying activity.
Pennsylvania
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security told Pennsylvania officials that it identified 14,576 potential noncitizen registrants by comparing the state’s publicly available voter roll against internal immigration databases using personally identifiable information such as names, dates of birth, addresses, and phone numbers. DHS said it would provide the state with the list for review.
Texas
State and federal prosecutors charged seven people in Tarrant County with voting-related offenses, including illegal voting in the 2024 general election and false claims of citizenship to register.
The Secretary of State’s Office referred 117 potential noncitizen voting cases to the Attorney General and directed county registrars to reinstate 578 registrants flagged through SAVE whose citizenship the state has since confirmed.
Utah
Legislative auditors found compliance errors in Utah, Wasatch, and San Juan counties, including a double vote counted in Wasatch County when in-person vote credit was not uploaded to the separate mail ballot processing system, and recommended stronger compliance oversight by the Lieutenant Governor’s Office. A link to the audit materials is available here.
Federal prosecutors charged a former U.S. Postal Service worker with unlawfully disposing of approximately 300 mail-in ballots to registered voters in Utah during the state’s June 23 primary election. Prosecutors allege the ballots and other mail were thrown into a church parking lot dumpster.
Virginia
The Department of Elections issued guidance limiting disqualification of voters with felony convictions who are no longer incarcerated to those convicted of murder or voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, implementing a federal court ruling under the Virginia Readmission Act. Virginia election officials are reviewing a misleading online ballot image posted by the state senate majority leader that appeared to list the wrong candidate for the Eighth Congressional District. According to the article, the image was not an official ballot but circulated widely enough to raise questions. The Department of Elections said it is examining the issue and emphasized that official ballots must accurately present candidates’ names and party labels.
New York
The New York State Board of Elections unanimously approved regulations establishing procedures for local boards that use ballot drop boxes. The rules address dropbox design and labeling, video surveillance, bipartisan ballot retrieval teams, and locations. Local boards are not required to use drop boxes.
Colorado
Peters v. People, No. 26SC332 (Colo.)
The state Supreme Court declined review of former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters’ prosecution for permitting unauthorized access to voting equipment. Governor Jared Polis had previously commuted her sentence, but Peters had petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn her trial court conviction based on its refusal to instruct the jury on affirmative defenses and by excluding evidence.
Delaware
Hocker v. Albence, No. 2026-1021-BWD (Del.)
On September 16, the state Supreme Court heard arguments in an expedited appeal challenging the state’s permanent absentee voting law. The challengers argue that the Delaware Constitution requires absentee voters to establish their eligibility anew for each election.
District of Columbia
League of United Latin American Citizens v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-03157 (D.D.C.)
On September 10, the League of United Latin American Citizens, Common Cause, UnidosUS, and the City and County of Denver filed suit seeking to enjoin what plaintiffs describe as a federal “Polling Place Policy” and a declaration that 18 U.S.C. § 592 bars armed federal officers at polling sites.
NAACP v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:26-cv-03263 (D.D.C.)
On September 18, the NAACP and eight other organizations filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security and other federal officials, alleging that deploying armed federal agents at or near polling places would violate Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, and seeking to bar deployments that intimidate voters or those assisting them.
DSCC v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-01114 (D.D.C.)
On September 13, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the U.S. Postal Service’s ballot mail rule in three consolidated suits, holding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the rule’s Federal Ballot Mail Portal enrollment and verification requirements exceed the Postal Service’s authority under the Postal Reorganization Act.
League of Women Voters v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:25-cv-03501 (D.D.C.)
On September 15, the League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) urged the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the federal government’s application to stay an order barring use of the modified SAVE citizenship verification system.
American Oversight v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 1:26-cv-03223 (D.D.C.)
On September 15, American Oversight filed suit under FOIA to compel the U.S. Postal Service to produce records on the development of the Federal Ballot Mail Portal.
Illinois
Lopez v. Illinois State Board of Elections, No. 1:26-cv-9156 (N.D. Ill.)
On September 21, a federal district court dismissed without prejudice a constitutional challenge to Illinois’s ballot-access requirements for independent congressional candidates. The court held that Illinois’s 5% signature requirement, even when considered together with the state’s other ballot-access restrictions, imposed a reasonable, nondiscriminatory burden justified by the state’s asserted interests.
Indiana
In re Election Recount: Deery v. Copenhaver, No. 26S-EX-293 (Ind.)
On September 10, the Indiana Supreme Court set aside the Indiana Recount Commission’s determination that Paula Copenhaver had won the Republican primary for State Senate District 23. The court held that Indiana law requires counting a qualifying ballot despite a defect caused by an election officer and ordered the Commission to recertify the results showing Spencer Deery ahead by three votes.
League of Women Voters of Indiana v. Morales, No. 1:25-cv-02150 (S.D. Ind.)
On September 10, a federal court dismissed without prejudice a challenge to Indiana’s citizenship verification statutes, holding the plaintiff organizations failed to allege standing, granted them 28 days to amend, and denied the pending motion for a preliminary injunction.
Massachusetts
California v. United States Postal Service, No. 1:26-cv-13917 (D. Mass.)
On September 10, the First Circuit denied the federal government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the U.S. Postal Service’s ballot mail rule for the November 3 election.
As discussed above, on September 14, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the federal government’s application to stay the injunction, concluding that it was unlikely to succeed on the merits and that the balance of equities also weighed against a stay.
Minnesota
City of Oak Grove v. Simon, No. A26-0910 (Minn.)
On September 11, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the City of Oak Grove’s petition under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44, holding that Minn. Stat. § 201.225 gives the city, not Anoka County, authority to choose paper voter rosters for precincts within its boundaries in the November general election.
Missouri
Onder, et al. v. Missouri, et al., No. 26-2797 (8th Cir.)
On September 21, the Eighth Circuit issued a permanent injunction ordering Missouri to use the congressional map employed in its August primary rather than the 2022 map reinstated by the Missouri Supreme Court, concluding that switching maps between the primary and general elections would violate the Constitution. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit ordered the district court to administratively stay the permanent injunction for seven days to allow the parties to seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court. Intervenor-defendants immediately sought a stay with the Supreme Court and Justice Kavanaugh ordered a response by 2 p.m. on Wednesday. The Supreme Court has not taken action as of the time of this release.
La Strada v. Hoskins, No. 26AC-CC00592 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Cole Cnty.)
On September 14, Nick La Strada, whom Secretary of State Hoskins dismissed as director of election integrity in May, filed suit in state court alleging he was fired for reporting a discussion among office staff about fabricating evidence for a federal HAVA proceeding and for objecting to other actions by the office.
Bermudez v. Hoskins, No. 26AC-CC00591 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Cole Cnty.)
On September 11, five voters filed suit in state court seeking class certification and about $80 million in statutory damages from Secretary of State Hoskins, alleging he neglected his duties by declaring the congressional map referendum petition insufficient and by directing local election officials to use the 2025 map contrary to a Missouri Supreme Court order.
Dennis v. Hoskins, No. 26AC-CC00610 (Mo. Cir. Ct., Cole Cnty.)
On September 16, two voters filed a second proposed class action against Secretary Hoskins in state court, seeking $500 per member plus compensatory damages for voters who cast August primary ballots in one congressional district but will vote in another on November 3, alleging his delay in ruling on the referendum caused the primary to run under the 2025 map.
Missouri v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 4:26-cv-00131 (E.D. Mo.)
On September 18, Missouri voluntarily dismissed its federal lawsuit challenging the Census Bureau’s inclusion of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders in the population count used for congressional apportionment. Missouri had sought to require the federal government to revise the 2020 Census methodology and prohibit those populations from being counted in the 2030 Census.
New Jersey
Republican National Committee v. Caldwell, No. TBD (D. N.J.)
On September 22, Republican committees and elected officials filed suit against Secretary of State Caldwell and election officials in five counties, alleging they failed to produce federally mandated voter roll maintenance records requested under the National Voter Registration Act. The plaintiffs seek an order requiring production of records concerning the state’s voter-list maintenance practices.
New York
Matter of Hansen v. Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, No. 2026-04740 (N.Y. App. Div.)
On September 14, a New York appellate court dismissed as untimely a proceeding seeking to validate a designating petition for a Suffolk County Republican committee position. The court held that the candidate had to comply with Election Law § 16-102’s short filing deadlines and could not rely on the longer limitations period under CPLR Article 78.
North Carolina
Stein v. Hall, No. 23CV029308-910 (N.C. Ct. App.)
On September 16, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s ruling that had invalidated provisions of Senate Bill 382 transferring appointment authority over the State Board of Elections from the governor to the state auditor. In a 2–1 decision, the court held that the transfer did not clearly violate separation of powers because North Carolina’s executive authority is divided among specialized members of the Council of State.
North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans, et al. v. North Carolina State Board of Elections et al., No. 1:26-cv-965 (M.D.N.C.)
On September 22, several voting rights organizations and individual voters filed suit challenging new absentee ballot procedures adopted by the North Carolina State Board of Elections. The plaintiffs allege that the rules unlawfully reject ballots with unsealed inner envelopes and require signatures without a verification standard. They seek to enjoin those policies for the 2026 election and future elections.
South Carolina
ACLU of South Carolina Foundation v. State Election Commission, No. 2026-CP-40-06706 (S.C. Ct. of Common Pleas)
On September 17, the ACLU of South Carolina filed suit alleging that the State Election Commission violated the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act during the 2025 removal of Executive Director Howard Knapp. The complaint alleges that the Commission conducted official business outside a public meeting, failed to provide proper notice before a closed executive session, and secretly polled commissioners. The ACLU seeks disclosure of records relating to the session in which Knapp’s removal was discussed.
South Dakota
League of Women Voters of South Dakota v. Johnson, No. 4:26-CV-04162-ECS (D.S.D.)
On September 11, the district court heard argument on a preliminary injunction motion challenging South Dakota’s notices to voters designated as “federal only.” The court denied the motion after Secretary of State Johnson corrected form letters for voters registered as federal-only, instructed them to notify affected voters how to restore full voter status before the October 19 registration deadline, and asked the state’s voter registration vendor to disable the feature that generated the inaccurate letters
Texas
In re Rose, No. 26-0916 (Tex.)
On September 11, the state Supreme Court barred Galveston County from using commissioner, constable, and justice of the peace precinct lines adopted in June for the November general election, holding that a county may not change precinct lines between a primary and the corresponding general election.
Vermont
United States v. Hanzas, No. 2:25-cv-00903 (D. Vt.)
On September 17, a federal district court dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit seeking Vermont’s unredacted state voter file. The DOJ stated it would likely appeal the ruling.
Washington
United States v. Hobbs, No. C25-6078-KKE (W.D. Wash.)
On September 22, the district court dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit seeking Washington’s unredacted voter rolls.
Wisconsin
Gavery v. Harris (Wis. Election Comm’n)
On September 14, an election observer supported by the Center for Election Confidence filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Elections Commission alleging violations of state election law during the August 11 primary. The complaint alleges a lack of bipartisan control, and improper restrictions on election observers trying to view areas where ballots were handled. The complaint also alleges a failure to notice a meeting of the municipal board of absentee ballot canvassers or the pre-election public test of tabulating equipment.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced charges against six people in California, Kansas, and Louisiana involving alleged illegal voting, fraudulent voter registration, and identity theft. The cases include two noncitizens accused of voting in federal elections, a Louisiana mayoral candidate accused of registering an ineligible voter, and three California defendants accused of using stolen voter identities to obtain signatures for ballot petitions. Additionally, the Justice Department announced charges against 16 individuals across eight federal judicial districts on similar charges. The cases include noncitizens accused of voting in federal elections in Texas, Idaho, Georgia, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and Michigan, along with related fraud allegations involving financial, naturalization, passport, and unlawful firearms.
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight held a hearing examining New Jersey’s disclosure that approximately 6,600 people who identified themselves as noncitizens at the Motor Vehicle Commission were nevertheless added to the state’s voter rolls. At this hearing, Justin Riemer, on behalf of Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, testified before the subcommittee, outlining the evolution of New Jersey’s election law on automatic voter registration and comparing it with other jurisdictions, such as Oregon. He also recommended various federal reforms, particularly directed at preventing noncitizen registration through DMVs. The witnesses’ written testimony is available here.
On September 16, the centrist House Problem Solvers Caucus unveiled an agenda to limit mid-decade redistricting and partisan gerrymandering. U.S. Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-01) and Tom Suozzi (D-NY-03), the caucus co-chairs, said the proposal grew out of a bipartisan task force and centers on four pieces of legislation to restore trust in the political process. Postmaster General David Steiner said the Postal Service has stopped work on a computer system intended to verify mail-in ballots for the 2026 midterm elections under President Trump’s executive order. Steiner said the agency halted implementation because the U.S. Supreme Court left a preliminary injunction in place earlier that week.
Abhi Kambli, a partner at Holtzman Vogel, argues that Missouri’s 2026 congressional-map dispute became a constitutional crisis after the Missouri Supreme Court ordered the state to revert to its 2022 map when primaries were held under the newer 2025 map. Kambli contends that the state court created an untenable conflict by providing little guidance on how election officials could comply. In contrast, subsequent federal court orders pointed in the opposite direction, leaving officials caught between competing state and federal commands.
M.D. Kittle argues that New Jersey’s discovery of thousands of noncitizens on its voter rolls points to a broader vulnerability in states that combine automatic voter registration with driver’s license access for noncitizens. Kittle cites testimony before a House Judiciary subcommittee and examples from other states to argue that citizenship-verification safeguards are inadequate and that New Jersey officials have not been sufficiently transparent about the scope of the problem. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board argues (paywalled) that the Supreme Court’s decision blocking the Trump administration’s mail-in ballot rules illustrates the resilience of the U.S. election system, which it attributes to decentralized election administration and an independent judiciary. Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued there’s “at least a fair prospect” that the U.S. Postal Service is not overreaching its power but supported leaving the rule ineffective for 2026 because election officials lacked sufficient time to implement it before the midterms.
Christopher Mann, April Tan, and Kira Flemke of the Center for Election Innovation & Research reported interim findings from a 50-state review of the conditions that trigger inactivation of a voter registration record.
The MIT Election Data + Science Lab outlined a proposed common framework for voter list maintenance, emphasizing that states face recurring challenges in keeping rolls accurate because of population mobility, decentralized election administration, privacy constraints, and varied state practices. The piece argues that clearer shared terminology and comparable measures would help administrators, researchers, policymakers, and the public better evaluate list-maintenance systems and distinguish routine registration updating from improper voter removal. Professor Charles Stewart argues that the available evidence does not support broad claims that mail-ballot transmission problems are systematically disadvantaging one party. Reviewing recent data on mail-ballot return rates and rejected ballots, Stewart notes that while mail voting remains vulnerable to ordinary delivery delays, voter error, and administrative variation, the patterns do not show a clear partisan skew large enough to substantiate claims of a targeted or structurally biased mail-ballot problem.
The Grant Institute has potential openings for junior-level attorneys and others interested in the study of election administration and voting issues. Interested candidates should please email their resumes to info@grantdemocracy.org.