Courts Block Trump Administration's Mail-In Ballot Restrictions Ahead of Midterms

In early-to-mid September 2026, a federal judge and the U.S. Supreme Court separately acted to block a Trump administration plan that would have imposed new requirements on mail-in voting ahead of the midterm elections. The plan sought to require states to use scannable ballot envelopes and to submit lists of voters eligible to receive mail ballots. A federal judge issued an order blocking the rules on September 4, and the Supreme Court, in a ruling reported around September 15, declined to let the administration implement the changes, prompting an angry response from President Trump on social media, according to multiple outlets. Election officials from both parties characterized the blocked rules as posing significant administrative burdens had they taken effect so close to the midterms. Following the Supreme Court's ruling, election officials said they were increasing efforts to reassure the public that mail-in voting remains secure. Legal analysts cited by NBC News said the Supreme Court's rulings on mail-in ballots and redistricting suggested the court would be skeptical of further last-minute changes to election procedures before the midterms. The New York Times reported that the judge's block came before the Supreme Court had ruled, and that further appeals were expected regardless of the outcome. As of the latest reporting, the legal fight remains unresolved, with additional appeals anticipated. Separately, ABC News reported a rise in mail ballots rejected for late postmarks in Washington and Oregon following changes to U.S. Postal Service procedures, though this data point pertains to a distinct issue from the litigation over the administration's proposed ballot envelope and voter-list rules. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson discussed mail voting and related election administration matters in a September 6 interview, though specific claims from that interview were not corroborated by other outlets and are not confirmed here. The precise scope of further appeals and the ultimate fate of the administration's proposed rules remain undetermined based on available reporting.