Don’t Let the Supreme Court’s Big Decision Fool You. Trump Is Still a Threat to Mail Ballots.

Supreme Court Upholds State Authority on Late-Arriving Mail Ballots; Administration Order on Voter Data Faces Court Challenges

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in Watson v. RNC that states may count mail ballots postmarked by Election Day even if received afterward. The decision leaves intact existing state procedures for processing such ballots in multiple jurisdictions.

The same Court earlier issued a decision in Louisiana v. Callais that altered the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in a redistricting dispute in Louisiana. That ruling has prompted additional litigation and map-drawing activity in several states ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

In March, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14399 directing federal agencies to create a national voter database and requiring states to submit lists of registered voters. The order instructed the United States Postal Service to develop standards under which it would not deliver mail ballots from states that had not provided such data. Administration officials stated the measures were intended to reduce voter fraud.

USPS published a proposed rule implementing aspects of the order. Postmaster General David Steiner testified before Congress that the agency would withhold delivery of mail ballots in non-compliant states. Two days later, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the order. The court found the directive exceeded executive authority and violated separation-of-powers principles because the Constitution assigns voter eligibility determinations to the states.

Judge Casper’s order noted that no statute enacted by Congress grants USPS authority to condition ballot delivery on state compliance with federal data requests. Existing USPS voting-related materials are advisory rather than mandatory, and the compliance timeline in the proposed rule did not follow statutory notice-and-comment procedures.

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia filed suit challenging the executive order. Additional lawsuits were brought by other parties. The Justice Department had previously sued several states seeking to compel production of voter rolls; those cases remain pending or have been unsuccessful to date.

The Trump administration is expected to appeal the injunction. Separate challenges to the executive order continue in other courts. President Trump has also urged Congress to pass the SAVE Act, which would require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, restrict certain mail-voting practices, and increase the frequency of voter-roll maintenance. The bill has not yet secured sufficient votes for passage. House Speaker Mike Johnson was unable to advance it before a recent recess.

On the same day as the Watson decision, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Republican National Committee v. Mi Familia Vota, which concerns Arizona’s requirement that voter registration applicants provide proof of citizenship. In NRSC v. FEC, the Court struck down certain limits on coordinated spending between candidates and political parties, a ruling that alters campaign finance rules for the upcoming election cycle.

Following the Louisiana v. Callais decision, redistricting litigation has proceeded in multiple states. The Colorado Supreme Court rejected a proposal to suspend the state’s independent redistricting commission for the 2026 cycle. In Virginia, the state Supreme Court blocked implementation of a congressional map approved by voters through a ballot measure. The Cook Political Report has estimated that Republican gains from ongoing redistricting could reach approximately five seats, though Democrats currently hold a narrow House majority.

The article’s original text contained an incorrect identification of the federal district judge who issued the injunction; court records identify the judge as Denise Casper. Claims describing the executive order as an attempt to “rig” elections or as an abuse of authority reflect characterizations by critics rather than judicial findings. The administration has maintained that the order addresses election integrity concerns.

Statements from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and other commentators attributing partisan motives to the order or to the Supreme Court’s recent docket have appeared in public discussion. Such statements are attributed to their sources and do not constitute findings of fact by courts.

Litigation over the executive order, redistricting maps, and related voting rules is ongoing. Congress is scheduled to reconvene after its recess to consider pending legislation, including the SAVE Act.