The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court for permission to resume its efforts to restrict mail voting in the lead-up to the midterms.
Administration lawyers asked the justices to clear the way for a new rule that prohibits the U.S. Postal Service from delivering ballots to states that do not share voter data with the federal agency. The rule would also require the agency to review ballot envelopes for compliance with new standards before accepting it.
In the emergency filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that a lower court freeze on the plan would impose “serious irreparable harm on the federal government, the states themselves, and the voting public.”
The emergency request to the Supreme Court marks the second time in recent weeks that the court has been asked to weigh in on efforts by President Trump’s mail ballot plans. Previously, a majority of the court said a legal challenge was premature because the administration had not yet finalized its plans to restrict mail voting.
But the Postal Service published its plans in August in the days before the Supreme Court’s ruling, and a lower court judge has since blocked key parts of the plan from going into effect for the November election.
The administration’s emergency appeal to the justices came hours after a federal judge in Massachusetts, during a hearing in the matter, expressed concerns that the plans could cause so much chaos in the coming elections that states would experience “major disenfranchisement.”
Judge Indira Talwani has imposed a temporary block on the plan. The administration has appealed but rather than allow that legal process to play out, the administration is now attempting to skip ahead and get immediate intervention from the Supreme Court.
It’s unclear how long it will take for the justices to announce a decision on the government’s plan. The court asked the challengers to respond to the emergency application by Tuesday, Sept. 8 at 10 a.m.
But each delay makes it appear less likely that the Postal Service would be able to clear legal and logistical hurdles to make changes in time for the November election.
In a sworn statement to the Massachusetts judge on Thursday, a Postal Service official said the agency was taking steps to prepare for the possibility that the courts will allow it to move forward. The official wrote that the service was continuing to make “refinements” to the new ballot screening system and expected to be able to make it available to states “for voluntary use by sometime next week.”
Got a news tip about the courts? If you have information to share about the Supreme Court or other federal courts, please contact us.
Democratic state attorneys general, voting rights organizations and civil rights groups challenging the rule argue that it violates the Constitution, which gives states responsibility for regulating elections.
The Trump administration has responded by arguing that the Postal Service is authorized by federal law to make the changes.
The legal battle began after President Trump in March signed an executive order announcing plans to restrict mail voting and to create lists of citizens in each state to help screen for voting eligibility.
The order directed the Department of Homeland Security to build lists of citizens and then to share these lists with each state. The order then instructed states to give citizen lists to the Postal Service, which would screen ballot mail for eligibility.
Several legal challenges followed, including a lawsuit by Democratic state attorneys general. In June, the federal trial judge overseeing that case, Judge Talwani, temporarily blocked the president’s order. Judge Talwani found that the executive order violated the Constitution, which gives states — not the executive branch — the responsibility to regulate elections.
The Trump administration swiftly appealed, asking the Supreme Court to weigh in. After nearly a month, the justices on Aug. 24 sided with the president. The court’s conservative majority concluded the challenge was premature.
The majority wrote that the decision was preliminary and indicated they were not weighing in on whether the administration’s order “will necessarily be lawful” once the plans were in place. “On that score, time will tell,” the justices wrote.
The court’s three liberals dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections.”
The court’s order did not address the Postal Service’s plan, which was announced after the Trump administration asked the justices to step in but three days before the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The legal action then shifted back to the lower courts in a flurry of action.
That reprieve for the Trump administration was short-lived.
On Aug. 27, Judge Talwani put a new freeze in place, blocking key parts of the Postal Service plan.
