Supreme Court says Trump can’t enforce new mail-in ballot regulation

WASHINGTON — Casting a decisive blow against President Donald Trump’s hopes of exercising federal control over the midterm elections, the Supreme Court on Monday prevented a U.S. Postal Service regulation concerning mail-in ballots from going into effect.

The court in a brief order rejected an emergency application the Trump administration filed seeking to block a lower court ruling that said the regulation was most likely unlawful. The court appeared to be divided 7-2, with two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, dissenting.

The measure would have imposed requirements on states for sending out mail-in ballots to voters. Typically, the Postal Service has no such role.

Implementing those significant changes just weeks before the election would most likely have caused major problems, and advocates feared it would make it harder for millions of Americans to cast their ballots.

Time was already running out for the rule to be implemented, with North Carolina sending out ballots Sept. 4 and other states soon to follow. There were also questions about whether the Postal Service even had the technical means to put it into effect.

Trump frequently rails against the widespread use of mail-in ballots as part of his broader complaints, offered without evidence, that the election system is rife with fraud.

Challengers, including various states led by California and nonprofit advocacy groups headed by the League of Women Voters, say the rule would cause unnecessary disruption ahead of the election and prevent people from voting.

Under the new rule, states would have to submit lists of eligible voters to the Postal Service, which would then verify that ballots were being sent to people on that list before it delivered them. States would also have to comply with directions about envelope design.

Trump’s initial order envisioned the federal government’s creating and sending the Postal Service lists of citizens and forcing it to send ballots to those people, but the final Postal Service proposal did not include that provision.

In a dissenting opinion, Alito said the federal government had the better of the argument. Concerns raised by states about the difficulties of implementing the rule gave him pause, he added, “but it is not enough to convince me.”

Alito also complained that courts, including the Supreme Court itself, were partly to blame for the case’s being decided so close to the election, saying they had taken too long to decide it.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, another member of the court’s conservative majority, wrote a brief concurring opinion saying there is a “fair prospect” the Postal Service has the authority to issue the rule but added it had to be blocked because it was issued so close to the election.

The Postal Service issued the regulation at the direction of the White House, with Trump issuing an executive order about the issue in March.

Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the regulation, saying the Postal Service had no authority to issue it.

She warned of the risk of “significant disenfranchisement” if the regulation were in effect and noted that the Trump administration had failed to offer any evidence that it was required to combat election fraud.

Various states have said they would not be able to comply with the regulation even if it were in effect, although some have indicated they could. A whistleblower complaint last week said the Postal Service system for checking ballots was flawed and that it could cause significant disruptions if it were implemented.

Talwani said that while litigation continues, states can voluntarily comply with the Postal Service regulation but have no obligation to do so. She also said the Postal Service cannot refuse to send ballots.

The federal government has downplayed the impact of the regulation, saying in court papers that it is a “modest design and information requirements for ballot-mail envelopes.” When states send out ballots, the Postal Service would check to see that the envelopes were in compliance, and if they were not, they woukd be returned to election officials, Trump administration lawyers said.

Trump issued his executive order after he failed to persuade the Republican-controlled Congress to pass his SAVE America Act legislation, which would impose new voting restrictions nationwide, including proof of citizenship to register to vote and voter ID.

Talwani had earlier blocked key provisions of the executive order itself, but in an Aug. 24 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled she had acted prematurely.