The US Supreme Court has blocked Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict mail-in ballots, but the ruling has not halted the president’s wider campaign to bring state-run elections under greater federal control.
The decision prevents the administration from requiring states to provide lists of voters approved to receive postal ballots, which the US Postal Service would then have used to screen ballot envelopes before delivery. Two lower-court judges had already found that the changes were probably unlawful and should not be introduced so close to November’s elections.
Several states had begun sending ballots before the Supreme Court reached its decision. Election chiefs in seven Republican-controlled states had warned that imposing the new rules so late could cause “mistakes, delays and confusion” for voters and election workers.
North Carolina, Delaware and Alabama were among those that had already mailed ballots, according to a filing submitted to the Supreme Court.
Federal pressure on election officials continues
Despite the setback, the Trump administration is pursuing several other measures aimed at reshaping the election system. The Justice Department has sued 30 states seeking unredacted voter rolls, containing personal details including driving licence numbers and partial Social Security numbers.
The department has lost 23 of those cases, while decisions remain outstanding in the others. Days before the Supreme Court ruling, it also sent threatening letters to at least 30 senior election officials as it intensified its demand for access to voter information and election records.
Federal agents are examining state-managed voter rolls for non-citizens, although the source material says there is no evidence of widespread fraud. The administration has also asked the Supreme Court to allow it to create citizenship lists by combining information held by agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration.
A lower court has so far prevented the use of that data-sharing tool. Administration officials say it is needed to verify citizenship for voting, among other purposes.
Markwayne Mullin, the homeland security secretary, warned election officials in July that they could face prison if they failed to comply with the administration’s efforts to change election policies. Justice Department officials have also considered whether criminal charges could be brought against state or local officials accused of failing to protect computer systems adequately.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is part of the Homeland Security Department, is demanding that states alter the way they run elections or risk losing tens of millions of dollars in federal terrorism-prevention funding.
Warnings over confidence in the vote
Critics say the administration’s actions are needlessly fuelling doubts about elections. Trump has argued that he is seeking to protect the integrity of the vote, but claims of widespread fraud have repeatedly been investigated and debunked.
Benjamin Hovland, who was removed from the independent, bipartisan Election Assistance Commission by the Trump administration this year, said the Supreme Court ruling had reduced the immediate effect on voters and election workers but had not ended the wider dispute.
“This is far from over,” Mr Hovland said.
He added that the administration was using “the apparatus of government, using federal agencies, using taxpayer dollars, to push that narrative that only undermines confidence in our democracy and ultimately hurts voters and election officials”.
Kimball W Brace, president of Election Data Services, which works with local governments on election preparedness, said he did not expect the ruling to stop Republicans from continuing to press their arguments about the election process.
“I don’t anticipate people on the Republican side not wanting to continue and push their side of the story as much as possible,” he said.
A survey by the Associated Press, the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and USAFacts found that only 34 per cent of US adults trusted government certifications of election results “a great deal” or “quite a bit”. That was down from 40 per cent in 2024.
Election experts have warned that pressure from Washington, alongside the legal battles, is alarming voters and local officials. Mr Brace said election administrators were being subjected to intense demands from competing political interests.
“They don’t want to deal with this crazy pressure that various interests and various individuals have pushed on the election administration,” he said.
The administration has also cut back parts of the government’s election security infrastructure. Experts say the reductions could limit the ability of federal agencies to identify foreign influence operations and cyber attacks affecting elections.
The Supreme Court’s decision therefore represents a significant legal loss for Mr Trump, who said this year that he wanted to “take over” and nationalise elections, but it leaves his broader effort to exert federal influence over voting systems intact.
