The Trump administration is back at the Supreme Court in the ballot-mail fight, asking the justices to move quickly before November voting begins. At issue is a Massachusetts judge’s order that has blocked part of President Trump’s election directive across much of the country, and government lawyers say delay now could affect how mail-in ballots are handled in the midterms.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court that prompt action is necessary, arguing that the lower court rulings are already undercutting the administration’s timeline. He said the judge’s orders will “effectively run out the clock” on the government’s ability to carry out Section 3 of the executive order and warned of “irreparable harm to the federal government, the public, and election integrity.” The dispute centers on a provision that would prevent the U.S. Postal Service from delivering mail-in ballots to voters whose names are missing from newly created eligibility lists.
The conflict began after Mr. Trump signed the order on March 31 under the title “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The directive contains three major parts. One calls for the Department of Homeland Security to compile citizenship rolls for each state and deliver them at least 60 days before federal elections. Another tells the attorney general to prioritize investigations and possible prosecutions of state and local officials who send federal ballots to people not authorized to receive them. Section 3, the part now tied up in court, would require states to turn over mail-ballot recipient lists to the Postal Service, which would then be barred from delivering ballots to anyone not appearing on its own lists.
Twenty-three states, led by California, and the District of Columbia sued in federal court in Massachusetts. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that claims tied to elections after Nov. 3, 2026, were too speculative, but she said the 2026 timeline for the midterms presented a “direct and immediate dilemma.” On June 25, she issued an order shielding the states and D.C. from the disputed provisions through Election Day this November. The administration then asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to pause her order, but the panel declined. The appeals court also noted that neither the administration nor the 12 Alabama-led states supporting it had defended the legality of the order itself.
