Supreme Court slams brakes on Trump’s mail-in voting plan

descriptions off, selected

captions settings, opens captions settings dialog

captions off, selected

This is a modal window.

Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.

End of dialog window.

The Hill's Headlines (PM) - September 14, 2026

The Hill's Headlines (PM) - September 14, 2026

▪ McConnell’s long-awaited return

▪ Kennedy Center closure vote

▪ Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding gift controversy

▪ Key AI test in House

Thank you for signing up!

Subscribe to more newsletters here

The Supreme Court dashed President Trump‘s push for mail-in voting restrictions with a decision handed down late Monday, with November’s election 50 days away.

The court ruled over the public dissents of two conservatives, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, that the government was “unlikely to succeed” on the merits of its arguments against a federal judge’s order blocking the U.S. Postal Service’s implementation of Trump’s plan.

One of Trump’s appointees, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, sided with the majority but noted at least a decent argument exists that Trump’s plan is legal.

“But applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The logistical challenges of implementing Trump’s executive order were becoming more impractical by the week. A key deadline was reached earlier this month when the 60-day mark before Election Day passed, triggering North Carolina to send out ballots.

Other states are set to begin sending mail-in ballots in the coming days and weeks, and the federal government is required to start sending mail-in ballots to military and overseas voters on Saturday, 45 days before Election Day.

Trump’s executive order sought to require states to submit lists of voters eligible to receive a mail-in ballot by 60 days in advance and direct the Postal Service to only deliver ballots to those on approved lists. It also sought to require the ballots to have a specific approved design.

The ruling marks a rare defeat for the president on the court’s emergency docket. The court previously ruled in Trump’s favor, finding that a group of blue-leaning states likely didn’t have standing to sue because the order hadn’t been finalized.

But the states quickly sued again once the Postal Service sought to implement the order.

The court has been thrust into multiple key election fights recently with Election Day fast approaching. The court stepped in twice to rule against a GOP-favored map in Missouri that likely would’ve resulted in the party picking up an additional House seat.

And The Hill’s Zach Schonfeld notes that the court is still considering another case on whether the Department of Homeland Security can use an overhauled immigration verification system to scrutinize voter rolls.

The ruling on the mail-in voting plan isn’t the end of the legal fight. The court only refused to lift the lower judge’s block on the Postal Service’s plan, and the case can still continue through the legal system.

But opponents of the ban hailed the decision as a decisive win, for this cycle at least.

“Finally, fifty days out, and the American people have certainty when it comes to our country’s electoral process: Voting is safe, vote-by-mail is accessible to any and all who need it,” Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) of California, one of states that challenged the plan, said in a statement.

FIGHT FOR 2028: Join The Hill’s Amie Parnes and editor-in-chief Ian Swanson today for a special conversation on the battle within the Democratic Party for the 2028 presidential race.

Parnes and Swanson will be joined by Robert Wolf, the founder of 32 Advisers and former chairman and CEO of UBS Americas.

They will discuss the state of the party, who’s up and down among the potential 2028 contenders, Trump’s latest thoughts on AI and Parnes’s reporting on whether the president has a “Biden problem” on the U.S. economy.

The Hill Insiders can tune in today at noon at the link here.

Smart Take with Blake Burman

There’s a question right now about if Congress will put legislation together to regulate artificial intelligence in some form. Here’s another one: given AI’s incredible technical complexities, how many in Congress can handle the topic? I spoke with Rep. George Whitesides (D-Calif.), former chief of staff at NASA and former CEO of Virgin Galactic. 

“Knowledge about AI is not evenly distributed throughout Congress. And it’s really important that folks who do understand about technology and engineering and how we can make these things work step up right now. That’s what I’m trying to do,” Whitesides said. “Here’s the thing: we have to take this on because it’s our job,” he added. 

Whitesides is pushing for a “safety standdown” for at least a month. His proposal means you could still use your AI, but frontier research would be paused. We will start to see the ideas from Congress roll in about what guardrails could look like.

Burman hosts “The Hill” weeknights, 6 p.m. EDT/5 p.m. CDT on NewsNation.

Attorney General Todd Blanche will brief reporters in the Rose Garden on Tuesday, as the White House has yet to........

© The Hill