Trump Administration Takes USPS Mail-in Ballot Rules Fight to Supreme Court
Translated from English and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.
At a glance
- The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to lift a temporary order blocking new USPS rules on voter data and ballot envelopes.
- The regulation could lead USPS to reject ballots that do not meet new requirements or come from voters missing from state-provided lists.
- States and voting-rights groups argue the rules interfere with state control of elections and could disrupt legitimate ballots before the midterms.
The Trump administration has taken its fight over mail-in ballots back to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to restore a Postal Service rule that a federal judge temporarily blocked.
The Justice Department filed an emergency request on Thursday after U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston stopped USPS from enforcing the regulation. The rule followed an executive order by President Donald Trump and would require states to provide the Postal Service with lists of mail-ballot recipients. It would also impose new standards for outbound and return envelopes, including unique barcodes.
USPS could refuse to send ballots that fail to meet the standards or are linked to voters who do not appear on the state lists. Critics say the requirements could interfere with thousands of legitimate votes. They also argue that the changes could favor Republicans because Democratic voters have traditionally used mail-in ballots more often.
The legal dispute comes two months before the midterm elections, as Republicans try to retain control of Congress. Talwani issued a 14-day temporary order on August 27, finding that the rule likely violates the Constitution, which gives states responsibility for administering elections, and that states could not comply in the short time available.
This is the administrationโs second appeal to the Supreme Court over Trumpโs directive. On August 24, the courtโs 6-3 conservative majority lifted an earlier injunction against the executive order, while the three liberal justices dissented. That ruling criticized mostly Democratic-led states for bringing their challenge too early but left open the possibility of further litigation.
Originally published by Jerusalem Post in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.