The Supreme Court voted 6-3 on Monday, Aug. 24, 2026, to lift a lower-court injunction that had been blocking parts of President Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in ballots, clearing the way for the administration to start acting on it in the states that sued. But the unsigned order was explicit that the justices were not deciding whether the underlying order is actually legal — only that the states’ challenge to it was premature. “The court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful,” the order read. “On that score, time will tell.”
Key facts
- Vote: 6-3, unsigned order, Monday, Aug. 24, 2026
- What changed: The Supreme Court lifted the states’ injunction that had blocked parts of Trump’s mail-ballot executive order
- What changed next: Judge Talwani lifted her own nationwide injunction on Aug. 26, 2026, saying the Supreme Court’s ruling above “compelled” her to — the Postal Service rule can now proceed, and roughly two dozen states plus Pennsylvania sued USPS directly the same day
- The order: Executive Order 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” signed March 31, 2026
- Who sued: California and 22 other, mostly Democratic-led states
- Dissents: Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, and separately Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
- Case name: Trump v. California
Two injunctions — both now lifted
Three separate legal fights were in play: the executive order itself, the states’ injunction the Supreme Court lifted Monday, and a second, separate nationwide injunction. Monday’s ruling lifted only the states’ injunction — the one California and other states had won. The second injunction, issued Aug. 11, 2026 by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in a different lawsuit brought by nonprofit voting-rights groups including the League of Women Voters, kept blocking the Postal Service until Talwani herself lifted it on Aug. 26, 2026, saying the Supreme Court’s ruling left her no choice. With both injunctions gone, the Postal Service rule can move forward for this November’s election.
What the executive order requires
The order at the center of the fight is Executive Order 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” which Trump signed March 31, 2026. It directs the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Social Security Administration, to compile state-by-state lists of citizens confirmed eligible to vote. It directs the Postal Service not to deliver mail-in or absentee ballots to anyone not on those lists. And it directs the Justice Department to prioritize investigating and prosecuting election officials who issue ballots to people the federal government considers ineligible. That list requirement is the part of the order most likely to touch an individual voter directly: if it took effect, someone not confirmed on their state’s list would stop getting a ballot mailed to them automatically. It also threatens to withhold federal funding from states that don’t comply.
How the case reached the Supreme Court
California and 22 other, mostly Democratic-led states sued over the order shortly after it was signed. Judge Talwani granted those states a preliminary injunction in June 2026 blocking key parts of the order from taking effect — the states’ injunction that the Supreme Court lifted on Monday. The six-justice majority reasoned that the order, as it stood, was an internal federal directive that had not yet harmed the states, so the challenge was not yet ripe for a court to block.
Dissenting justices’ objections
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, arguing the states already faced a concrete, imminent injury and that the majority’s ruling “does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful,” nor does it suggest “the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a separate dissent of her own, calling the case not “a close call” and warning that the ruling “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.”
Reaction to the ruling
Reaction broke down along predictable lines. The White House called the ruling “a major win for the security of American elections” and described the order’s provisions as “commonsense measures.” California pushed back hardest: Gov. Gavin Newsom vowed the state “will sue again” to block implementation, calling it part of an effort to “rig elections and destroy democracy” and pledging California would keep mailing a ballot to every eligible voter, while state Attorney General Rob Bonta added that the ruling “was not a ruling on the merits, and this fight is far from over.”
Postal Service’s own rule
Separately from the executive order, the Postal Service issued its own final rule around Aug. 21, 2026, covering administrative details of how ballot mail is designed and tracked — not who is eligible to receive a ballot; the citizenship-list requirement described above is the piece of the order that would decide that. That rule is also on hold: the Postal Service has said it won’t apply it to this year’s election unless the courts clear the way.
Can states meet the timeline?
State election officials have questioned whether the rule could even be carried out in time. Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar said complying would be “impossible to implement … In that time frame,” and election administration expert Tammy Patrick said no state currently runs its elections the way the new rule assumes. North Carolina’s first ballots for overseas and military voters were already scheduled to go out Sept. 4, 2026, and California’s were due to begin going out roughly 11 days after the ruling — timelines that left little room to build new verification systems even if the second injunction were lifted.
Update: judge found USPS violated the injunction, then lifted it entirely
On Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026, Judge Talwani ruled that the Postal Service had violated her injunction by finalizing the mail-ballot rule for publication — she said USPS had “feigned compliance” with her order, though she took no action against the government over it. The next day, Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2026, Talwani lifted her injunction outright, writing she was “compelled” to by the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling — while still calling the executive order “likely unconstitutional” and warning it could unleash “chaos.” With her injunction gone, the Postal Service rule can now proceed for this November’s election; the first mail ballots were due to start going out the following week. The League of Women Voters, the original plaintiff in Talwani’s case, asked the same day for a new order blocking the plan. Separately, a coalition of roughly two dozen Democratic-led states and Pennsylvania filed a new lawsuit directly against the Postal Service over the rule.
Update: a new restraining order blocks the rule again
On Thursday, Aug. 27, 2026, Judge Talwani granted the League of Women Voters’ request: she issued a new temporary restraining order blocking the Postal Service from enforcing the core parts of the mail-ballot rule — the requirements that states supply USPS with lists of mail-ballot recipients and that return envelopes carry unique barcodes, with USPS able to refuse ballots that don’t comply. Talwani wrote that USPS had “presented no evidence regarding fraudulent mail-in voting” to justify the rule, calling it likely unconstitutional. The restraining order lasts 14 days while she considers a longer-term preliminary injunction; she scheduled a hearing on that for Sept. 3, 2026. The separate lawsuit filed directly against USPS by roughly two dozen states plus Pennsylvania remains pending.
What happens next
Monday’s ruling was not the last word, and neither was Talwani lifting her own injunction, nor was the new restraining order she issued Thursday. In dissent from the Supreme Court’s ruling, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan wrote that the decision “merely postpones adjudication” of the underlying legal challenges — a case formally captioned Trump v. California. With both injunctions now lifted, the fight has moved to two new fronts: the League of Women Voters’ request for a fresh order blocking the Postal Service rule, and the new, roughly two-dozen-state-plus-Pennsylvania lawsuit filed directly against USPS. California officials have said they will keep fighting the order in court, while New York Attorney General Letitia James called the Supreme Court’s ruling “a painful setback” but said it would not be the final word.
Sources and further reading
- Trump v. California stay second supplemental brief (No. 26A124)
- Docket for 26A124, Trump v. California
- Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records (USPS ballot-mail transmission)
- 26A124 Trump v. California opinion/order (docket)
- Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections (Executive Order 14399)
- Ballot Mail for Federal Elections (proposed rule)