Restoration Responds: Supreme Court Lifts District Court Injunction on Trump Order on Mail-in Voting
The Justices correctly affirmed that activist judges cannot block an agency rule before it exists.
On Aug. 24, the Supreme Court struck down a district court ruling that had blocked one of President Donald Trump’s key election integrity orders. The March 31 order directed the U.S. Postal Service to establish secure standards for mail-in ballots in federal elections. These included standardizing ballot tracking and limiting recipients to individuals on state-submitted voter lists. The Court’s ruling paves the way for higher election security standards in the midterms.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama-appointed bench activist, had preemptively struck down Trump’s order before the Postal Service had even acted on it. In the 6–3 unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court held that federal courts are supposed to review final rules—not proposed rules. “If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the States, they may challenge that rule,” the majority wrote.
On Aug. 21, the Postal Service fulfilled Trump’s directive. The new rule requires states to link voters’ names and home addresses to a unique barcode on each ballot envelope, then submit that data to a federal ballot mail portal. Additionally, both the outbound and return envelopes must contain the voter’s unique Intelligent Mail barcode (IMb), which states will also upload to the portal. The Postal Service will simply return ballots to states that do not properly comply. The agency notes that the data will provide federal law enforcement with a list of whom states intend to send a ballot, which will help it verify compliance with federal law.
The administration informed the Court before its ruling that the new regulation leaves out parts of Trump’s demands. Solicitor General John Sauer noted, the agency will “not refuse to transmit ballots from individuals who were not on the state-provided list.” This limited approach strengthens the rule’s prospects against future court challenges by staying within the Postal Service’s traditional mail authority.
How We Got Here
- Trump’s March executive order directed the Postal Service to create a trackable, barcoded standard for Official Election Mail and to coordinate on preventing delivery of ballots to ineligible voters.
- Democratic-led states sued, and an Obama-appointed district judge issued an injunction before the Postal Service finalized its position.
- The Trump administration won on appeal in the Supreme Court, which determined that courts can only enjoin actual rules, not internal directives.
- The Postal Service’s rule is more limited in scope than Trump’s order but likelier to succeed on its constitutional merits.
Why It Matters
- Mail-in voting remains the highest-risk pathway for election fraud. Without basic tracking and enrollment standards, states can continue mailing ballots with minimal accountability.
- The activist liberal judge overreached. The Supreme Court properly reined in the district judge’s judicial activism, noting that speculating about future harm does not create jurisdiction.
- A narrower rule is more survivable. By limiting itself to requiring barcodes and collecting voter data, the Postal Service is better positioning itself to survive coming court challenges.
What Can I Do?
Contact your senator today at SaveActNow.com and demand they pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. It limits mail-in voting to military personnel, overseas voters, and those with genuine need.
You can also check the rolls yourself in 35 states and the District of Columbia. Visit VoteRef.com from the Voter Reference Foundation to review publicly available voter data.
The Takeaway
The Supreme Court correctly refused to let a liberal, lower-court judge prevent Trump’s order from taking effect. The Postal Service’s more modest final rule represents a practical way to put federal guardrails on mail-in voting and provide federal law enforcement with additional tools to ensure no federal laws are broken in the process.
