President Trump’s Big Supreme Court Win Over Mail Ballots

In a 6-3 decision Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed President Trump a significant win ruling in favor of his executive order increasing election integrity relating to mail ballots, saying states improperly sued over the order.

With the three liberal justices dissenting, the Court lifted a lower-court injunction that had blocked key parts of President Trump’s March 2026 executive order on election integrity measures related to mail-in ballots.

Within minutes, Governor Gavin Newsom announced another lawsuit against the Trump administration.

California lawsuit Number #87 against Trump admin. Or is it #88? https://t.co/jAxKU9aZgK

— Katy Grimes (@KATYSaccitizen) August 24, 2026

Scotus Blog reports:

The Supreme Court on Monday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, that imposes restrictions on mail-in voting. The court paused an injunction by a federal judge in Boston that had barred the federal government from applying provisions of that executive order in the November elections to 23 states (along with the District of Columbia) challenging their legality.

A separate ruling by the same judge, in a case filed by a different set of plaintiffs, temporarily prohibits the U.S. Postal Service from implementing one provision of the executive order anywhere in the United States. That ruling remains in effect, at least for now.

In its 10-page, unsigned opinion, the majority said that it was too soon for courts to consider the states’ challenge because the order has not yet been carried out – which means that the states have not suffered the kind of injury that allows their lawsuit to move forward.

The court’s three Democratic appointees dissented. In a 23-page opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the majority of “[t]aking its eye off the ball” and thus “miss[ing] the Government’s actual objective: to secure our imprimatur for its effort to foment chaos ahead of the November elections.”

March 31, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14399 directing the Department of Homeland Security to verify citizenship in each state. The order also directed the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to initiate rulemaking to ensure only verified, eligible voters would receive ballots:

The right to vote in Federal elections is reserved exclusively for citizens of the United States under the Constitution and Federal law.  Federal statutes explicitly prohibit non-citizens from registering to vote or voting in Federal elections and impose criminal penalties for violations.  (18 U.S.C. 241; 18 U.S.C. 611; 18 U.S.C. 1015; and 52 U.S.C. 20511).  The Social Security Administration (SSA) maintains records that, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program under 42 U.S.C. 1320b-7, can assist in verifying identity and Federal election voter eligibility.

The ruling by the Supreme Court found that there was no harm to states:

In its unsigned opinion, the majority wrote that the first provision of the order, instructing the DHS secretary to create state citizenship lists, is simply “an internal directive from the President to a subordinate.” Because it doesn’t require states to do anything, the majority reasoned, they are not injured by the provision – and therefore cannot challenge it. The possibility that the DHS secretary could implement the provision before November, and that the states could be harmed by that implementation, the majority stressed, is not enough to give the states a right to sue.

The second provision of the order does not harm the states, the majority continued, because it merely “directs the Attorney General to ‘prioritize’ the investigation and prosecution of those who violate existing federal laws by issuing ballots to ineligible voters.” Such an instruction, the court said, lies squarely within the powers that the Constitution gives the president.

And the third and final provision, the majority said, “orders the Postal Service to initiate the process of proposing a rule that might bind the States in the future.” When the states filed their lawsuit – which, the majority wrote, is the relevant time for determining whether the states had a right to sue – the order was “not a proposed rule, let alone a final rule.” Here too, the majority indicated, Talwani’s “conclusion that this internal directive inflicts” the kind of injury that would allow the states to sue “necessarily rests on an ‘attenuated chain of inferences.’” “If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the States,” the majority noted, “they may challenge that rule.”

In July, in a dramatic video, Governor Newsom posted on X:

To anyone considering helping President Trump interfere with our election or our count:

You will be prosecuted.

That’s why I’m moving forward with new legislation that would make it a FELONY to seize ballots before the vote has been certified by state and county officials. pic.twitter.com/5lNEJx3zUI

— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) July 6, 2026

Newsom was savaged on X. These are a few choice comments:

“This creepy message brought to you by the state government that is constantly meddling in Huntington Beach’s elections.”

“You are an absolute imbecile. You have been robbing your tax players, blind, and rigging elections your entire time in office go ahead and threaten us with a good time.”

“You well be prosecuted for your many FELONIES. Enjoy your ‘retirement’ with Eric Swalwell and Graham Platner.”

“You sound so transparent.”

“You seem really scared of getting caught cheating.”

Meanwhile, as President Trump observed, “Trump slammed what he called a suspiciously high volume of mail-in-ballots cast for Cynthia Raman in the 2026 LA mayoral race primaries.”

“You know, they don’t have voting booths; everything’s by mail. I don’t think a Republican can win in California unless you pass the Save America Act,” Trump told Fox News, referring to GOP legislation to narrow the scope of mail-in voting and voter-ID requirements.

“They’re going to have to get rid of mail-in voting.”

What election fraud?

ELECTION INTEGRITY: The Supreme Court agreed to let the president ensure that mail-in ballots only get sent to and received from lawful voters. Democrats are freaking out. pic.twitter.com/bi5yBRPjXh

— @amuse (@amuse) August 25, 2026