A coalition of states is asking the Supreme Court to stop the Trump administration from overhauling mail-in ballot rules less than 90 days before the midterm elections, and some state officials are already telling voters to skip the mailbox entirely.
The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal on July 27, asking the justices to let two key parts of a March executive order take effect while legal challenges continue. One provision directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote. The other orders the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to voters on each state's approved list. Lower courts blocked both provisions in nearly half the states, and the administration wants the Supreme Court to reverse those rulings before November.
On August 3, a group of plaintiff states filed a consolidated opposition brief with the high court, warning of "extraordinary consequences" if the executive order moves forward this close to Election Day. The case, docketed as Trump v. California, now sits with the justices, and no decision timeline has been announced.
A bipartisan group of more than 100 election officials weighed in with a friend-of-the-court brief filed July 5. Their message was blunt. USA TODAY reported that the officials told the Court an eleventh-hour rule change would upend preparations already underway across the country.
"Should this Court approve the requested stay, thereby allowing the (executive order) to take effect within the plaintiff states fewer than 100 days before a major federal election where well over 100 million voters are likely to cast ballots, the result will be chaos."
The officials argued there would not be enough time to test new procedures, train election staff, and educate voters about the changes. That concern is not hypothetical. State election offices are already scrambling to deal with a separate USPS policy shift that took effect months ago.
In December 2025, the Postal Service updated its postmark guidelines. Under the new standard, a postmark reflects the date an envelope is first processed by an automated sorting machine, not the date a voter drops it off. More than a dozen states accept ballots postmarked on or before Election Day even if they arrive afterward. The new postmark rule means a ballot mailed on Election Day could receive a postmark dated a day or two later, potentially disqualifying it under state law.
The Supreme Court addressed a related question on June 29, ruling that Mississippi can count late-arriving mail-in ballots. But that decision did not resolve the broader fight over the executive order or the postmark change, and the Court's docket is already packed with consequential cases touching election law, religious liberty, and other flashpoints.
Some state officials are not waiting for the Court to act. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown told USA TODAY he is steering voters away from the Postal Service altogether.
"We, and me personally as a messaging issue, encourage people to use our ballot drop boxes rather than the mail system; just to avoid any potential delays or errors or frankly at this stage attempts to interfere by the federal government. Our ballot boxes are locally controlled and operated and don't involve the federal government. We generally encourage that as the best way to get people's votes in."
Brown's language, "attempts to interfere by the federal government", frames the executive order as an intrusion into state-run elections, a characterization the White House firmly rejects.
In Nevada, Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar described a different headache. His office is trying to make sure voters understand that mailing a ballot on Election Day may no longer guarantee it arrives with a valid postmark.
"That's been a challenge for us to educate voters that, hey, if you're going to vote by mail on election day, make sure you drop it off at a polling location, not in a mailbox."
State election offices across the country have turned to social media, radio ads, mailers, and media outreach to spread the word. The effort amounts to a nationwide workaround, states adjusting voter behavior because they cannot control federal postal policy.
The Department of Justice has pushed back on the lower-court injunctions, arguing that judges acted too soon. DOJ's position is that the Postal Service has not even finished writing the rules to implement the executive order, so blocking it now is premature. That argument could carry weight with a Supreme Court that has historically been cautious about pre-enforcement challenges, but the states counter that waiting until the rules are finalized would leave no time to litigate before ballots go out.
The Postal Service itself has stayed out of the public debate. A spokesperson declined to comment, citing the pending litigation: "Because of pending litigation, we have no response to offer on any questions related to the Executive Order or the proposed rule."
White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis framed the executive order as a fulfillment of a campaign promise. The administration has consistently argued that the federal government has a legitimate role in ensuring only eligible citizens receive and cast mail-in ballots, a position that resonates with millions of voters who sent Trump back to the White House in part because of concerns about election integrity. The administration's broader enforcement agenda has leaned heavily on executive authority, and the mail-ballot order fits that pattern.
"The entire Trump Administration will continue lawfully enacting the agenda President Trump was elected to implement, which includes the safety and security of American elections. This campaign pledge from the President is why millions of Americans sent him back to the White House."
The legal battle is often described as a fight over mail-in ballot fraud, but the deeper question is about power. The executive order would give the federal government, through USPS and DHS, a gatekeeper role in deciding which voters receive ballots. States have run their own voter rolls and election procedures for generations. Even states that support tighter election security may bristle at a federal agency compiling a parallel national database of eligible voters and dictating which names appear on a delivery list.
That tension is not new. The Trump administration has repeatedly turned to the Supreme Court to advance its agenda when lower courts push back, and the justices have not always sided with the White House. The Court struck down Trump's tariff levies earlier this term, forcing the administration to return $100 billion in refunds, a reminder that executive power has limits even with a sympathetic bench.
For now, the mail-ballot case sits in the justices' hands with no public timeline for a decision. Every day that passes without a ruling is a day closer to an election that more than 100 million voters are expected to participate in. Election administrators need lead time to print, mail, and process ballots. If the Court grants the administration's request, states would have to overhaul procedures on the fly. If it denies the request, the executive order stays frozen and the status quo holds through November.
Election integrity is a legitimate concern, and voters deserve confidence that only eligible citizens cast ballots. But confidence also depends on clear rules set well in advance, not a last-minute overhaul imposed from Washington while ballots are already being prepared. If the administration wants to reshape how mail-in voting works, it should finish writing the rules, let the courts weigh in on a normal timeline, and implement changes before the next election cycle, not during one.