The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6‑3 on Monday to pause a lower‑court block on President Trump’s mail‑in voting executive order, keeping the policy alive ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Supreme Court Stays Injunction
The per curiam decision grants the Trump administration’s emergency request to stay a June injunction issued by Massachusetts‑based District Judge Indira Talwani, who had halted the order in states challenging its scope.
The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile a list of every adult U.S. citizen in each state and requires the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those listed, Fox News reported.
The administration appealed Talwani’s injunction to the 1st Circuit but lost; the appellate court rejected the request, while a separate D.C. Circuit ruling found the challengers’ suit unreviewable because the targeted agencies had yet to issue implementing regulations.
On Friday the Postal Service issued a rule requiring states to provide lists of voters who received mail‑in ballots, according to Fox.
The Supreme Court concluded that the administration is likely to succeed on the merits that Talwani lacked jurisdiction and that the injunction causes irreparable harm, with the equities favoring a stay while the appeal proceeds.
The majority cautioned that its stay does not guarantee every implementation step will be lawful, emphasizing that the order itself does not harm the states, so the district court had no authority to block its execution.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent, argued that the states’ challenges are justiciable now and that the order creates a concrete, imminent injury satisfying Article III standing.
Sotomayor wrote that the structure of the executive order, the government’s representations, and the balance of equities weigh against granting emergency relief, urging the Court to allow the states to pursue their claims without delay.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a separate 23‑page dissent, asserting that the Court’s action violates longstanding equitable precedents, injects chaos into the upcoming elections, and misapplies standing and ripeness doctrines.
Jackson warned that the ruling deprives voters and election officials of clarity, calling the decision a disservice that fuels pre‑election confusion rather than resolves it.
The stay remains in effect pending the First Circuit’s review of the appeal and any timely petition for a writ of certiorari; it ends if the Supreme Court denies the petition or decides the case on the merits.
Shawn Fleetwood, a staff writer for The Federalist and University of Mary Washington graduate, received the 2025 Dao Prize for Investigative Journalism and has contributed to RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood.
