-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- The contested order directs USPS and Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of eligible voters and bar mail ballots to anyone not enrolled, a sweeping change critics say guts state election control.
- California and 22 other states warn the late-breaking rules would disrupt election administration and deny ballots to disabled, rural and other voters who rely on mail voting.
The Trump administration again on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene — and fast — to save President Trump’s plan for the U.S. Postal Service to place new nationwide limits on mail voting ahead of the November midterms.
It did so after a lower court judge blocked the Postal Service plan from moving forward for a second time Tuesday.
Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote to the high court that if it does not act quickly to lift both of the lower court’s “erroneous” rulings blocking the plan, those orders “will effectively run out the clock on the government’s ability to implement” the changes in time for the November election, “thereby causing irreparable harm to the federal government, the public, and election integrity.”
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office — in its own filing late Wednesday — asked the high court to reject the administration’s request, arguing that the administration’s request for the high court to lift both of the lower court’s rulings at once was inappropriate, as the two cases hinge on distinct legal issues.
Sauer’s latest argument was filed in an emergency case already before the Supreme Court, in which the Trump administration is challenging a June decision blocking the Postal Service’s rule changes by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani.
Talwani, an appointee of President Obama, ruled in favor of California and 22 other states that had challenged the new rules as coming far too late in the election year to be implemented without causing significant disruptions and harming voters. That decision, which was upheld by an appellate court in July, had barred the new measures from being implemented in the states that sued, but not elsewhere.
President Trump’s executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to use state-by-state lists of eligible voters who may send a ballot by mail.
However, Sauer filed his latest argument in response to a second ruling by Talwani in a separate case Tuesday, in which she sided with the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups to block the Postal Service plans from moving forward nationwide.
“That it is now less than 90 days before the November 3, 2026 midterm elections underscores the critical need for an injunction to prevent Defendants from changing election rules on the eve of the election,” Talwani wrote.
The court battle follows an executive order Trump issued in March, in which he called on the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections” by compiling their own state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote and then using those lists to restrict who may vote by mail in each state.
The order said the Postal Service “shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list.”
The order was immediately slammed by Democratic attorneys general and independent voting rights groups as a ploy by the Trump administration to get its hands on state voter rolls, which it has failed to secure in separate legal challenges, and severely limit mail voting, which Trump has without evidence alleged is a major source of voter fraud.
Bonta helped lead the states’ lawsuit challenging Trump’s order, and has praised Talwani’s orders blocking it from taking effect. Bonta has said the law is clear that states control elections, not the federal government, and that Trump’s order is an illegal and dangerous power grab ahead of a pivotal election in which the president’s party is poised to lose power.
A Shasta County Superior Court judge has halted a voter-approved measure that would eliminated most mail-in voting
The Trump administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court is limited in scope, in that it hinges on a technical argument that the challenges to the new rules are premature — and that the Postal Service should be allowed to continue preparing for the new rules to be implemented while the legal battle over their legality continues.
Sauer reiterated that argument in his filing Wednesday, asking the high court to not only issue its order soon, but to make clear in it that not one but both of Talwani’s orders are premature.
He wrote that courts cannot block the implementation of an executive order “that merely instructs agencies to pursue a proposed policy in a manner that is consistent with law,” particularly before those agencies “actually take concrete actions that injure” the groups suing to block the order.
Therefore, Sauer wrote, it would be “prudent” for the high court to make clear that it was halting Talwani’s first order “based on the uncertainty concerning the government’s future actions, not anything specific to the individual plaintiffs” — or, in other words, on grounds that would apply to her second order, too.
He wrote that it was “critical” that the court “act promptly.”
The states have asked the high court to block Trump’s order, which they said would deny mail ballots to “many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas.”
Late Wednesday, Bonta’s office also asked the high court to reject Sauer’s suggestion that it rule in a way that would address both of Talwani’s orders at once.
Ian Fein, deputy solicitor general in the California Department of Justice, writing on behalf of Bonta, wrote that if Sauer wants the high court to lift Talwani’s latest order, he should seek an order in that case — not in the states’ case — so that the League of Women Voters and the other voting rights groups that are plaintiffs in that case can have a chance to respond.
“That is especially true in light of the distinct legal issues involved in the different cases,” Fein said, noting that the courts in the states’ case must consider the “concrete harms” of Trump’s executive order on the states — which he said have a “primary responsibility” to administer the upcoming midterms, unlike the private organizations suing in the separate case.
The League of Women Voters hailed Talwani’s order Tuesday as a win for voters and for the U.S. Constitution, which it said makes clear the president does not have the authority to rewrite election rules.
“Millions of Americans, including seniors, military voters, voters with disabilities, rural voters, and citizens living overseas, rely on voting by mail to participate in our democracy,” said Marcia Johnson, the group’s chief of activation and justice. “Today’s decision reaffirms that the rules governing our democracy must be set by the Constitution and the law, not by executive overreach.”
When the high court will rule is unclear, though the emergency nature of the appeal calls for a prompt response.
Facts Only
* The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene regarding a plan for the U.S. Postal Service to place nationwide limits on mail voting before the November midterms.
* The request followed a lower court judge blocking the Postal Service plan for a second time.
* The contested order directs USPS and Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of eligible voters and bar mail ballots to unenrolled individuals.
* California and 22 other states warned the rules would disrupt election administration and deny ballots to specific voters.
* Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that prompt action was needed to prevent the orders from running out the clock for implementation before the November election.
* The executive order required the Postal Service and Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of eligible voters to restrict mail-in ballot transmission.
* A lower court judge ruled that new rules would cause significant disruptions if implemented too late in the election year.
* A separate ruling sided with voting rights groups to block the Postal Service plans from moving forward nationwide.
* The states sued, arguing the order was an illegal power grab affecting state election control.
Executive Summary
The Trump administration requested the Supreme Court intervene to save President Trump’s plan for the U.S. Postal Service to implement nationwide limits on mail voting before the November midterms. This request followed a lower court judge blocking the Postal Service plan twice. The order directs the USPS and Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of eligible voters and bar mail ballots to those not enrolled. California and 22 other states expressed concern that these rules would disrupt election administration and deny ballots to voters relying on mail voting, particularly those with disabilities or in rural areas.
The legal challenge involves an executive order from the Trump administration mandating state-by-state lists for voter eligibility to restrict mail-in voting. The government's action was challenged by states, whose legal representatives argued that the request for the Supreme Court to lift both lower court rulings simultaneously was inappropriate, as the cases involved distinct legal issues. One ruling had already barred implementation in specific states based on timing concerns, while another ruling sided with voting rights groups.
The dispute centers on whether executive action can supersede state election administration control and voter access, with arguments presented from both the administration seeking to implement policy and state/voting rights groups seeking to halt it.
Full Take
The conflict reveals a tension between federal executive authority over election integrity and the constitutional principle of reserved state powers in administering elections. The administration attempts to frame its action as a technical implementation of an executive order concerning voter verification, while opponents frame it as a fundamental infringement on state sovereignty and minority voting access. The repeated legal maneuvering—asking the Supreme Court to intervene rapidly and challenging the scope of previous rulings—suggests a pattern where political goals are pursued through procedural litigation rather than direct legislative action.
The reliance on "state-by-state lists" introduces an inherent conflict: while the federal government asserts jurisdiction over federal elections, state authorities assert primary control over electoral administration. The argument that courts should not block implementation based on uncertainty in future actions suggests a strategic attempt to allow administrative processes to continue despite legal challenges regarding foundational rights. However, the counter-argument emphasizes that the concrete harm to voters—particularly those with disabilities or in rural settings—demands immediate judicial intervention concerning the physical means of voting, suggesting that procedural delay risks actual disenfranchisement.
The differing focus between the administration’s technical argument (implementation consistency) and the states’ argument (concrete harms and state control) highlights a structural divide regarding where legal priority should lie: in the execution of federal directives or the protection of localized electoral processes. The outcome will likely depend on how the Supreme Court weighs preemptive administrative policy against established constitutional protections for voting access.
Bridge Questions: What precedent exists for allowing executive agencies to create mechanisms that directly restrict fundamental voting rights, and where does state election administration authority legally intersect with federal mandates? How can judicial review effectively balance the urgency of impending elections against the need for comprehensive legal certainty regarding electoral rules? What are the long-term systemic consequences if localized, vulnerable voters are consistently disadvantaged by centralized administrative policies enacted through emergency litigation?
Sentinel — Human
The article is a detailed journalistic report tracking complex Supreme Court litigation involving executive action and election administration disputes, showing typical legal reporting structures.