President Donald Trump is facing some legal challenges regarding the implementation of new federal mail-ballot regulations ahead of the 2028 presidential election, according to information from legal experts. In March, he issued an executive order asking the Postal Service to work on creating these new rules, which would include standardized ballot envelopes marked as Official Election Mail and unique barcodes that are machine-readable. Under this order, the Postal Service could potentially reject ballots that don’t meet the new criteria or those from individuals who aren’t listed as eligible voters in state records.
On September 14, the Supreme Court decided not to lift an injunction preventing these rules from being enacted before the November midterm elections, which raises questions about the feasibility of implementing these changes ahead of the 2028 election.
Experts pointed out that the court’s ruling will likely focus on the conflict between the president’s authority over federal mail regulation and the states’ rights to manage elections as they see fit. Michael Morley, a law professor at Florida State University, mentioned that if the court interprets the executive order as an attempt to regulate federal elections directly, it might be struck down. He noted that the president doesn’t have constitutional authority over federal elections, and Congress hasn’t given him wide-ranging power in this area.
However, if the Supreme Court looks at the new rules from the perspective of administrative requirements for the Postal Service to assure efficient operations and protect mail integrity, things could turn out differently. Morley believes that in such a case, the rules would likely be upheld, as it would be hard for the court to say that the Postal Service lacks the authority to manage how important mail, especially related to elections, is handled.
The Supreme Court recently upheld a 7-2 ruling that continues the injunction against Trump’s executive order regarding mail-in voting regulations. Even though Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, Justice Kavanaugh pointed out that while the Postal Service might have the authority to create regulations, implementing new rules so close to an election could violate federal law.
Some are using this recent ruling to speculate about how the court might decide on the post office’s authority to regulate election-related mail in the future. Stephen Richer, from the Cato Institute, observed that it seems at least six justices might be inclined to side against the administration, as the Constitution does not grant the president election regulation powers; this responsibility lies with Congress and the states.
Others argue that the court’s ruling relates more to procedural matters rather than being outright disapproval of the administration’s attempts to regulate mail voting. Chad Mizelle, a senior fellow at the America First Policy Institute, mentioned that Justice Kavanaugh seemed to believe the Postal Service probably has the authority to require verified voter lists and secure mail envelopes. Yet, he emphasized that there simply wasn’t enough time to implement such rules responsibly before the midterms.
Ultimately, regardless of what happens next, the president views the injunction as a significant setback. On Truth Social, he expressed frustration, claiming it was another loss for Republicans and suggested it facilitates electoral fraud through mail-in ballots.
While there have been individual instances of election-related fraud, they do not indicate a widespread issue across U.S. mail voting. There are still many uncertainties as Election Day nears, particularly in regard to who determines the rules for mail voting—states, Congress, or a federal agency.
The White House has not commented on this issue when contacted recently.
