The US Supreme Court on Monday decided to keep a new United States Postal Service (USPS) rule from being implemented before the midterm elections. Voting rights groups and local officials welcomed the decision. This was reported by Qazaqyia.kz citing The Guardian.

The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy Defenders Fund had filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court calling for the postal service rule to be blocked on behalf of: the League of United Latin American Citizens, Secure Families Initiative, Arizona Students' Association, the city of Madison, Wisconsin and Travis county, Texas.

"This rule, as directed by an executive order issued by the president in March, would have given the executive branch unprecedented control over the way Americans vote by mail," the groups said in a statement. "It would have made burdensome new requirements mandatory for every state and local election official that sends voters ballots through U.S. Mail and given the Postal Service the power to refuse to send ballot mail to voters if states had failed to comply."

"In this decision, the Supreme Court has made clear that the 2026 midterm elections must not be disrupted by the Trump administration's efforts to implement an unlawful new mail-voting system mid-election," Tianna Mays, legal director at Democracy Defenders Fund, said. "The Constitution does not give the president unilateral authority governing federal elections regarding mail voting or any of the other schemes the administration has cooked up to rig the election."

"Experts who have looked at the Postal Service's plan to screen mail-in ballots – including a whistleblower within the agency – say it carries tremendous risks for the freedom to vote," Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center, said. "The court wisely heeded these warnings and affirmed a lower court ruling to stop the agency from taking actions that could cut off access to absentee ballots for millions of Americans. I remain confident that this effort by the Postal Service, which comes in response to an unconstitutional and illegal executive order, will ultimately be permanently blocked."

"We are grateful the court recognizes that this issue is not a matter of presidential preference – it is a constitutional right," Dyana Limon-Mercado, Travis county clerk, said. "Implementing this rule so close to the election would create confusion for voters and jeopardize the ability of election officials across the country to administer a fair and transparent midterm election."

"The Constitution is clear: states hold the power to oversee elections, not the president or the Postal Service", Jessica Mendoza, executive director of Arizona Students' Association, said.

"This is an important win for local clerks, who simply want to serve their communities and administer fair, secure and accurate elections," Satya Rhodes-Conway, the mayor of Madison, Wisconsin said.

Significance of the decision

The Supreme Court's decision is part of ongoing disputes over mail-in voting in the United States. According to voting rights advocates, the Postal Service rule could have hindered the ability of millions of Americans to vote absentee in the run-up to the election.

As noted in the groups' statement, the rule was developed in response to the president's March executive order. It would have imposed new mandatory requirements on state and local election officials and given the Postal Service the power to refuse to send ballots if states failed to comply.

Among those supporting the court's decision are civil rights organizations, local election officials and city leaders. They characterized the issue not as a matter of presidential preference but as a constitutional right.

Expert opinion

According to Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center, experts who examined the Postal Service's plan, including a whistleblower within the agency, said it carried tremendous risks for the freedom to vote. He noted that the court affirmed a lower court ruling to stop the agency from taking actions that could cut off access to absentee ballots for millions of Americans.

According to Tianna Mays, legal director at Democracy Defenders Fund, the Constitution does not give the president unilateral authority governing federal elections regarding mail voting. She stressed that the 2026 midterm elections must not be disrupted by the administration's unlawful efforts.

Travis county clerk Dyana Limon-Mercado said that implementing the rule so close to the election would create confusion for voters and jeopardize the ability of election officials to administer a fair election.

Reaction from local authorities

Satya Rhodes-Conway, the mayor of Madison, Wisconsin, called the decision an important win for local clerks. She noted that local clerks simply want to serve their communities and administer fair, secure and accurate elections.

Jessica Mendoza, executive director of Arizona Students' Association, said the Constitution is clear: states hold the power to oversee elections, not the president or the Postal Service.

Thus, the Supreme Court's decision, by preventing the mail-voting rule from taking effect before the midterm elections, met the demands of voting rights advocates.