Trump's mail-voting executive order and New York's challenge
On Mar. 31, 2026 President Trump issued an executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service and DHS to restrict mail voting: DHS would send each state a list of citizens over 18, states using mail ballots would have to send the federal government a list of every registered voter receiving one, and USPS would decline to deliver mail ballots in states that do not provide the list. The order also sets new mail-ballot design and tracking standards. New York joined 22 other states and D.C. in suing. On Jun. 25 U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani found key provisions unconstitutional and enjoined them as to the 24 plaintiff jurisdictions; the 1st Circuit upheld that in late July. On Aug. 11 Talwani issued a second, nationwide injunction in a suit led by the League of Women Voters. On Aug. 21 USPS issued final implementing rules, saying it would not apply them this November unless the Supreme Court cleared the way. On Aug. 24 the Supreme Court, over three dissents, lifted the first injunction on the narrow ground that it was premature, expressly declining to rule on the order's legality; the Aug. 11 injunction still stands, so the order remains blocked. Election-law scholar Rick Hasen expects the trial court to amend the second injunction against the now-final USPS rule. Bearing on New York's Nov. 3 general election, in which mail and absentee ballots are at issue. UPDATE Sept. 14, 2026: after USPS finalized its ballot-mail rule (Aug. 26 Federal Register), Judge Talwani enjoined the final rule on Sept. 4 in the League of Women Voters case and a second judge enjoined it in DSCC v. Trump on Sept. 13. On the night of Sept. 14 the Supreme Court denied the administration's emergency application (No. 26A305) in an unsigned order, finding the government "unlikely to succeed on the merits"; Kavanaugh concurred on timing grounds, Alito and Thomas dissented. The restrictions will not apply to the Nov. 3, 2026 election. New York will run mail and absentee voting under existing state law; AG James said she was "truly relieved," and Hochul said on NY1 Sept. 15 that "elections will be secure in New York State no matter what the Trump administration tries." The order's legality for future elections remains unresolved.
The case on each side
The administration argues the President has authority to direct federal agencies including USPS, that the injunctions were issued before agencies had finalized implementation and were therefore premature, and that a bifurcated mail-voting system covering only some states is logistically unworkable. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued prolonged litigation would effectively run out the clock on implementation.
New York and the other plaintiff states argue the Constitution's Elections Clause gives states primary authority over election administration and gives the President no specific election powers, and that imposing transformative changes this close to the November election would disenfranchise voters. Justice Jackson, dissenting, called the ruling a Kafkaesque nightmare that injects chaos into the midterms; Justices Sotomayor and Kagan also dissented. Hochul: the Constitution does not give the President the authority to override the longstanding role of states in administering their own elections.