The Supreme Court’s cryptic mail ballot decision won’t be its last word on voting

Patrick T. Fallon/AFP/Getty Images

The Supreme Court’s recent patchwork of election-related decisions gives the public scant clues of how the justices would act if faced with a crucial dispute this fall that would definitively settle which party controls Congress or what to expect in 2028.

The justices’ unsigned order Monday rejecting President Donald Trump’s plan to let the US Postal Service possibly refuse to deliver ballots was cryptic. And an earlier June decision, similarly rejecting an attempt to foist new rules on mail-in ballots, came down to a single vote.

Some justices, notably Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, have echoed the Trump administration’s unsubstantiated claims of fraud regarding mail-in voting. And Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested on Monday an openness to letting the Postal Service control ballots in the future, perhaps for the 2028 presidential election cycle.

Washington lawyer Donald Verrilli, a former US solicitor general in the Obama administration, said on Tuesday that he anticipates continued legal conflict around mail-in ballots.

He observed that although no evidence exists that such ballots are conducive to fraud, that drumbeat is “in the air,” reinforced by Alito’s dissent Monday night.

Benjamin Fanjoy/Getty Images

What’s next for mail voting after the Supreme Court ruled against Trump

“As the rest of this electoral cycle unfolds, and into 2028,” Verrilli said at a Georgetown Law panel, “I think there’s going to be a lot of turbulence around these issues.”

The nine justices, dominated by six conservatives, have moved haltingly through cases, suggesting some concern about chaos for voters but also hewing to their established priorities.

Amid a torrent of lawsuits challenging administration policy since Trump returned to office in January 2025, litigation involving electoral practices is especially high stakes. Such cases determine cherished voting rights and the ability of all citizens to be represented by elected officials.

Earlier this year, the majority retrenched on the 1965 Voting Rights Act and provided state legislators greater latitude to draw maps that may dilute the voting power of Blacks and Latinos. Several states immediately began redistricting to eliminate “majority-minority” districts and give Republican candidates an advantage. The court allowed some of those changes to go ahead in the middle of the primary election season.

While Monday night’s order was a clear win for the Democratic-led states and voting-rights advocates who sued to block the Postal Service regulations from being enforced, it lacked a robust signal from the justices themselves.

The two-sentence order was devoid of any underlying legal reasoning. It said only, “The Government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court’s preliminary injunction. And the equitable factors applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court do not favor a stay.”

Perhaps the terseness was the result of the cross-ideological compromise among the justices, but those sentences merely reflect guideposts for dissolving a lower court injunction, such as whether that the government can show it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim and is likely to suffer irreparable harm without the stay.

The justices said nothing about the myriad issues that had been explored by lower court judges, related to the constitutional and statutory powers of the dueling parties and the feasibility of the Postal System screening plan.

In his brief concurrence, Kavanaugh wrote, “there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service’s statutory authority,” appearing to provide another possible vote in favor of Trump’s efforts.

State election officials, voting rights advocates and political operatives have been closely anticipating how the Supreme Court might affect this year’s midterms and possibly lay groundwork for the presidential election in 2028.

Disputed state electoral practices have become a staple of the justices’ docket and will likely continue through – and possibly after – the November 3 elections. The House of Representatives and Senate are currently controlled by Republicans. Democrats have a chance to flip at least the House and maybe both chambers.

Trump’s reaction to the 2020 election, when he lost to Joe Biden yet insisted the results were fraudulent, still shadows ballot controversies, as does the memory of the 2000 Bush v. Gore litigation.

In that case nearly 26 years ago, the Supreme Court essentially decided the contest between then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore by stopping ballot recounts in Florida and ensuring that the state’s decisive electoral votes went to Bush, the Republican candidate.

Outraged Tuesday about the justices’ order, Trump denounced his three appointees who apparently joined the majority against his plan to screen states’ mail-in ballots. (Only Alito and Thomas dissented publicly, but there was no recorded vote.)

In his first term, Trump had named Neil Gorsuch in 2017; Kavanaugh in 2018; and Amy Coney Barrett in 2020.

Trump declared in a Truth Social post: “These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of the original selves.”

Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department would continue to try to restrict mail voting.

“There should be nothing surprising about what we’re trying to do when it comes to mail-in voting, which is we want to make sure that there is safe voting and that there is integrity, free and fair elections, and that there is one person placing one vote and that that person is eligible to vote,” Blanche said Tuesday during a rare White House Rose Garden appearance.

In Monday’s case, the postal rules finalized in late August would have forced states to submit lists of eligible voters to the US Postal Service. The rules also called for new envelope requirements, including tracking barcodes. Without them, the USPS would have prohibited the delivery of ballots.

New documents show how Sandra Day O’Connor helped George W. Bush win the 2000 election

About 30% of voters across the country cast their ballots by mail, rather than in-person. People in the military, the elderly and disabled especially rely on mail-in ballots.

The state challengers, led by California, had argued that the Trump plan was unworkable as well as unlawful. Democratic and Republican state and local election officials warned throughout the summer that the USPS proposal could have led to mass disenfranchisement. Some states had already sent out ballots, and officials had been told there may not even be enough envelopes nationwide to start over.

A separate Supreme Court mail-in ballot dispute in June arose from a Trump-endorsed challenge to Mississippi’s five-day grace period for receipt of mail ballots postmarked by Election Day.

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court snubbed the Republican National Committee lawsuit against Mississippi. Barrett, who wrote for the majority, said that federal election-day laws, which designate the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, did not prevent Mississippi from counting properly postmarked ballots up to five days later.

Addressing the RNC and Trump claims of fraud in that case, Watson v. Republican National Committee , Barrett added, “Election fraud and its appearance are serious issues. Like other such issues, however, they must be addressed through the democratic process.”

Foreshadowing where Alito would land on Monday, he penned the dissenting statement in June, raising the specter of “voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s elections.”

Alito was joined in the RNC case by Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

On Monday night, he drew support only from Thomas. They argued for broad Postal Service authority, and, as they addressed the government’s interest in enforcing the rule, they echoed the administration’s arguments about enhancing “the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail in order to better detect fraud.”

Alito further compared some of the challengers’ claims to a “Hail Mary pass … unlikely to be successfully completed here.”

Patrick T. Fallon/法新社/盖蒂图片社

最高法院最近一系列与选举相关的裁决，让公众难以了解，如果今年秋天面临一场决定哪个党派控制国会或2028年大选走向的关键性争议，大法官们会如何应对。

周一，大法官们发布了一份未署名的命令，驳回了特朗普总统允许美国邮政局可能拒绝投递选票的计划，这份命令内容含糊不清。此前6月份的一项裁决也同样驳回了试图强加新邮寄选票规则的企图，该裁决仅以一票之差通过。

一些大法官，特别是塞缪尔·阿利托和克拉伦斯·托马斯，附和了特朗普政府关于邮寄投票存在舞弊的毫无根据的说法。布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官周一表示，他愿意考虑未来让邮政部门控制选票，或许可以用于2028年总统选举。

华盛顿律师唐纳德·维里利（Donald Verrilli）曾任奥巴马政府时期的美国副检察长，他周二表示，他预计围绕邮寄选票的法律冲突将会持续不断。

他指出，虽然没有证据表明此类选票容易导致舞弊，但这种风气“已经蔓延开来”，周一晚上阿利托的异议更是强化了这种风气。

Benjamin Fanjoy/Getty Images

最高法院裁定特朗普败诉后，邮寄投票的下一步是什么？

“随着本轮选举周期的推进，直至 2028 年，”维里利在乔治城大学法学院的一个小组讨论会上说，“我认为这些问题将会出现很多动荡。”

九名大法官中，有六名保守派大法官，他们审理案件的步伐缓慢，这表明他们担心会给选民带来混乱，但也表明他们坚持既定的优先事项。

自特朗普2025年1月重返白宫以来，挑战政府政策的诉讼案件层出不穷，其中涉及选举程序的诉讼尤为重要。此类案件关乎公民珍视的投票权以及所有公民能否获得民选官员的代表。

今年早些时候，多数派削弱了1965年《投票权法案》的效力，赋予州议员更大的权力来绘制选区地图，这可能会削弱黑人和拉丁裔的投票权。一些州立即开始重新划分选区，以消除“少数族裔占多数”的选区，从而使共和党候选人获得优势。法院允许其中一些变更在初选季中期生效。

虽然周一晚上的裁决对于提起诉讼阻止邮政服务法规实施的民主党领导的各州和投票权倡导者来说显然是一次胜利，但大法官们本身并没有发出强有力的信号。

这份仅有两句话的命令没有任何法律依据，只说：“政府对地区法院初步禁令提出的挑战不太可能获得成功。而且，本法院在寻求紧急救济时所适用的公平因素也不支持暂缓执行。”

或许这种简洁是法官们之间跨意识形态妥协的结果，但这些句子仅仅反映了解除下级法院禁令的指导原则，例如政府是否能够证明其主张有可能在实质上获得成功，以及如果没有中止令，政府可能会遭受无法弥补的损害。

大法官们对下级法院法官探讨过的诸多问题只字未提，这些问题涉及对立双方的宪法和法律权力以及邮政系统筛查计划的可行性。

卡瓦诺在简短的赞同意见中写道，“最终规则至少很有可能属于邮政局的法定权限范围”，这似乎为特朗普的努力提供了又一个可能的支持票。

各州选举官员、投票权倡导者和政治人士一直在密切关注最高法院可能会如何影响今年的中期选举，并可能为 2028 年总统选举奠定基础。

各州选举程序争议已成为最高法院的常见案件，而且很可能会持续到11月3日大选之后。目前，众议院和参议院均由共和党控制。民主党有机会至少夺回众议院的控制权，甚至可能同时掌控参众两院。

特朗普对 2020 年大选的反应——尽管他输给了乔·拜登，但他仍然坚称选举结果存在舞弊——至今仍给选票争议蒙上阴影，就像 2000 年布什诉戈尔案的记忆一样挥之不去。

大约 26 年前，最高法院通过停止佛罗里达州的重新计票，确保该州具有决定性的选举人票投给了共和党候选人布什，从而实际上决定了当时的德克萨斯州州长乔治·W·布什和副总统阿尔·戈尔之间的竞争。

周二，特朗普对大法官们的命令感到愤怒，他谴责了自己任命的三位大法官，这三位大法官显然加入了反对他审查各州邮寄选票计划的多数派。（只有阿利托和托马斯公开表示反对，但没有记录在案的投票。）

特朗普在其第一个任期内，分别于 2017 年、2018 年和 2020 年任命了尼尔·戈萨奇、卡瓦诺和艾米·科尼·巴雷特。

特朗普在 Truth Social 上发帖宣称：“这些人并非我面试时选出的美国最高法院大法官，他们只是原本的空壳。”

司法部长托德·布兰奇表示，司法部将继续努力限制邮寄投票。

“对于邮寄投票，我们所做的一切都不应该让人感到惊讶，那就是我们要确保投票安全、公正、自由公平，确保每人投出一票，并且确保该人有资格投票，”布兰奇周二在白宫玫瑰园罕见露面时说道。

就周一的案例而言，8月下旬最终确定的邮政规则将强制各州向美国邮政局提交合格选民名单。这些规则还提出了新的信封要求，包括追踪条形码。如果没有这些要求，美国邮政局将禁止投递选票。

新文件显示，桑德拉·戴·奥康纳如何帮助乔治·W·布什赢得2000年大选。

全国约有30%的选民选择邮寄投票，而不是亲自前往投票站。军人、老年人和残疾人尤其依赖邮寄投票。

以加利福尼亚州为首的各州挑战者认为，特朗普的方案既不可行又违法。整个夏季，民主党和共和党的州及地方选举官员都警告说，美国邮政总局的提议可能导致大规模选民被剥夺选举权。一些州已经寄出了选票，官员们被告知，全国范围内可能连足够的信封都凑不够，无法重新开始。

6 月份，最高法院还审理了一起邮寄选票争议案件，起因是特朗普支持的对密西西比州给予选举日当天邮戳邮寄选票五天宽限期的挑战。

最高法院以5比4的投票结果驳回了共和党全国委员会对密西西比州提起的诉讼。巴雷特大法官代表多数派撰写了判决意见，她指出，联邦选举日法规定11月第一个星期一之后的星期二为选举日，但这并不妨碍密西西比州统计邮戳日期在五天以内的选票。

针对共和党全国委员会和特朗普在该案（沃森诉共和党全国委员会）中提出的舞弊指控，巴雷特补充道：“选举舞弊及其表象都是严肃的问题。然而，与其他此类问题一样，它们必须通过民主程序来解决。”

预示着阿利托周一的立场，他在6月份撰写了反对声明，提出了“选民欺诈可能会进一步削弱美国人对美国选举公正性的信心”的担忧。

在共和党全国委员会案件中，阿利托与托马斯、戈萨奇和卡瓦诺一同出庭。

周一晚上，他只得到了托马斯的支持。他们主张赋予邮政局广泛的权力，并且在谈到政府执行该规定的利益时，他们呼应了政府关于提高“联邦选票邮件的可见性以便更好地发现欺诈行为”的论点。

阿利托进一步将一些挑战者的说法比作“孤注一掷的传球……不太可能在这里成功完成”。