Unbiased

Should the courts let Trump's mail-in voting order take effect for November before its legality is settled?

The justices lifted one injunction on standing grounds without deciding the order's legality, and two other court orders still block it before a September hearing.

7 min read2026-08-28

What the Court decided, and what it left open

On March 31, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14399, which reworks how federal ballots reach voters. It directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of confirmed citizens and transmit them to each state's chief election official. It orders the Attorney General to prioritize prosecuting state and local officials who issue federal ballots to ineligible voters. And it tells the Postmaster General to propose a rule barring the Postal Service from delivering a mail ballot to anyone a state has not placed on such a list.¹

On August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court let the order move forward. Over three noted dissents, it granted the government's application to stay a district-court injunction that had blocked Sections 2 and 3.² The stay is not a ruling that the order is lawful. The Court decided only a question of jurisdiction, holding that the challenging states are likely to lose on standing and ripeness because the order, as written, imposes no obligation on them yet. It wrote that its disposition "does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful."² Independent reporting read the order the same way: the justices paused the injunction on standing, not on the Constitution.³

The order is not in force across the country. The injunction the justices lifted was Judge Indira Talwani's June 25 permanent injunction, which reached only the 23 plaintiff states and the District of Columbia.⁴ A separate injunction from a suit by the League of Women Voters, entered nationwide, stayed in place after August 24.⁵ Four days later, a fresh restraining order again blocked the Postal Service's new mail-ballot rule for about two weeks, with a hearing on a longer injunction set for September 3.⁶ The stay removed one block. Others remain.

Trump v. California Supreme Court of the United States · No. 26A124

Stage: Stay of the district-court injunction granted August 24, 2026; merits appeal pending in the First Circuit.
Question: May the states challenge the order before a final rule enforces it?
Stakes: Whether the order governs the November 3, 2026 midterms while its legality is unresolved.

No court that has reached the merits has upheld the order, and the government did not defend the President's authority over election rules before the justices. It argued that the states had sued too soon.⁷ The question underneath the litigation is whether the courts should let the order take effect for the November 3 midterms while its legality is still unresolved. John Martin, a law professor at Quinnipiac, put the posture plainly: the Court found the states' case premature, and they will have standing to sue once the Postal Service acts.⁸ Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller named the bind the calendar creates. "It puts courts in a terrible place, because whatever happens is super close to the election," he said. "If it permits it, it creates super disruption for the states. If it suspends it, it visibly angers the administration."⁹

Mar 31, 2026
Executive Order 14399 signed¹

The order directs new citizenship lists, prosecution priorities, and a proposed Postal Service rule on mail ballots.
Apr 3, 2026
The states sue⁷

A coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia files three days after the order issues.
Jun 25, 2026
District court strikes Sections 2 and 3⁴

Judge Talwani grants summary judgment for the states and permanently enjoins the two sections as to the plaintiff states.
Jul 25, 2026
First Circuit denies a stay, 2–1¹⁰

The panel finds the states face imminent injury; one judge would have found parts of the order non-injurious for now.
Aug 24, 2026
Supreme Court grants the stay²

Over three dissents, the Court lifts the injunction on standing and ripeness, not on the merits.
Aug 28, 2026
A new restraining order, and a hearing set⁶

The Postal Service rule is blocked again for about two weeks, with a September 3 hearing on a longer injunction.

Too soon to strike it down

A court should not enjoin a presidential directive that has not yet been enforced against anyone. The states sued before any rule bound them, so their challenge is premature and the injunction had to go.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that the order "functions as an internal directive from the President to subordinate officials and agencies to engage in future policymaking" and "does not require anyone outside the government to do (or refrain from doing) anything."⁷ On that reading, the Section 2 citizenship lists are offered to the states, not imposed. Section 2(b) sets prosecutorial priorities, which lie within the executive's discretion. Section 3 only asks the Postmaster General to propose a rule.⁷ The states' asserted harms depend on what the agencies eventually decide, and a court cannot weigh a rule that does not yet exist.

The majority agreed on the point that decides the case: "the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it."² The Court leaned on two of its standing decisions, Trump v. New York and Clapper v. Amnesty International, that turned away plaintiffs whose threatened injury was too speculative to sue on.² The states keep their day in court and can challenge the final Postal Service rule once it issues, on a concrete record. Even on the First Circuit panel that ruled against the government, one judge agreed the states had not shown concrete injury from the citizenship-list provisions standing alone.¹⁰ Twelve states intervened to defend the order,⁷ and their companion application was denied as moot once the stay issued.²

The order recites the President's own asserted basis, "an unavoidable duty under Article II" to enforce federal law and protect confidence in elections, though the Court did not pass on that claim.¹ With voting weeks away, Sauer argued, an injunction against a directive that binds no one inflicts the greater harm: "every day that it remains in place irreparably harms the government, as the start of mail-in and absentee voting in some States is now just one month away."¹¹

The per curiam majority and Solicitor General D. John Sauer. The Court that issued the stay adopted this ground, resting the result on jurisdiction rather than on the President's power over elections.²

No court has upheld it

Every court to reach the merits held that the President lacks authority over how federal elections are run. Letting an order no judge has upheld shape a midterm inflicts immediate harm that a later ruling cannot undo.

The states' case is that the order is unlawful on its face and cannot wait. The Elections Clause commits the "times, places and manner" of federal elections to the states and to Congress, and Judge Talwani held that "the Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections."⁴ She found Sections 2 and 3 ultra vires and void, ruling that the President cannot compile a state's voter lists and cannot create a criminal offense that only Congress may define.⁴ The Brennan Center makes the same structural point: "only states and Congress may set the rules for federal elections," and the order "flatly violates the Constitution and federal law."¹²

The harm, on this view, is not for later. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, wrote that the government "cannot have it both ways." In her account it called the states' injury too speculative to confer standing while insisting the order had to be implemented at once to avoid irreparable harm.² Justice Jackson wrote that "no judge or Justice has held ... that the Order comports with the Constitution." She argued that the ripeness holding sits in tension with the Court's own recent standing cases, which let candidates challenge election-rule changes before they bite.²

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who co-leads the coalition, said the decision "was not a ruling on the merits, and this fight is far from over."¹³ The deadlines are already running. The order tells the Postal Service to refuse ballots to voters a state has not cleared. Nevada's secretary of state, Cisco Aguilar, called it impossible to build "a massive database that has 100% accuracy" in the weeks before the election.⁹

Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissenting, with Judge Indira Talwani. Three members of the Court would have left the challenge in place, and the district judge who reached the merits held the order unlawful.²

What the Court decided, and what it left open

Executive Order 14399 signed1

The states sue7

District court strikes Sections 2 and 34

First Circuit denies a stay, 2–110

Supreme Court grants the stay2

A new restraining order, and a hearing set6

Too soon to strike it down

No court has upheld it

Sources

Executive Order 14399 signed¹

The states sue⁷

District court strikes Sections 2 and 3⁴

First Circuit denies a stay, 2–1¹⁰

Supreme Court grants the stay²

A new restraining order, and a hearing set⁶