It aims to seize authority from both states and Congress over how elections are run.
The effort aims to push back against local and state-level control of how ballots are collected and counted by compelling a reordering of responsibilities between levels of government. President Donald Trump is pressing to markedly curb mail voting in the upcoming election by pressuring the United States Postal Service to withhold ballot delivery unless jurisdictions satisfy a set of burdensome conditions. This strategy challenges the principles of federalism and the separation of powers. The Constitution delegates primary oversight of election administration to the states, with Congress retaining the option to intervene for federal elections. Trump is attempting to seize those powers for federal control.
Numerous state governments and private groups challenged Trump’s executive directive in court. The Supreme Court reversed an early district court ruling that blocked the policy, deciding—on procedural grounds—that the plaintiff states had filed their case prematurely, before the USPS had issued a rule implementing Trump’s order. Although the Court’s reasoning might be questioned, it had limited practical impact. Even prior to the Court’s decision, the USPS released a final rule, and a federal district court judge, Indira Talwani, issued a fresh ruling enjoining the order. The Trump Administration has requested the Supreme Court to pause the new rule. The Justices would be prudent to deny that request.
The Elections Clause of the Constitution grants states the principal authority over “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” with Congress empowered to alter these rules by legislation. As Judge Talwani notes, “The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.” And, as she elaborates later in her opinion, no federal statute authorizes the president to employ the Postal Service to fundamentally transform state mail-in ballot rules. USPS does have authority to establish procedures necessary for mail delivery, but not to leverage that power to force changes to state election laws.
Judge Talwani further observes that the sweeping authority Trump claims here conflicts with the “major questions doctrine,” which requires clear congressional direction when delegating authority over major political and economic issues to the executive branch:
The Supreme Court has made clear that, where “the Government claim[s] broad, expansive power on an uncertain statutory basis[,]” a reviewing court may rely on the general principle that Congress does not delegate “‘highly consequential power’ through ambiguous language.” Learning Resources v. Trump, 607 U.S. 229, 242–43 (2026) (plurality opinion) (quoting West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U.S. 697, 723–24 (2022)). Few of Congress’s powers are more consequential than its supervisory authority to regulate elections, because voting is “preservative of all rights.” Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886).
As I have previously explained, the Learning Resources tariff case cited by Judge Talwani (in which I helped participate) builds on earlier “major questions” precedents.
The authority to employ the USPS to overhaul mail voting is, by most standards, a major decision. Eight states conduct all elections entirely by mail, and others apply mail voting to substantial portions of their electorate. Judge Talwani’s detailed analysis shows that the administration’s new requirements—mandating the use of USPS-approved envelope and ballot designs and a USPS-run portal to collect voters’ information—could disrupt the administration of elections in profound ways. In many places, printing of ballots has already occurred and distributions are underway, which could render the changes infeasible for the upcoming November ballot. In total, millions of votes may be affected. If this order stands, it could pave the way for even broader alterations to mail-in voting in the future.
Trump argues that the plan is necessary to combat fraud. Yet there is no evidence of large-scale mail-in voting fraud, nor proof that this form of voting experiences higher rates of fraud than in-person voting. His fraud claims appear to be part of a broader tactic to undermine results that do not favor him or the GOP, and to justify interference with elections. And, as my colleague Walter Olson of the Cato Institute notes, Trump has acknowledged that part of his goal in attacking mail-in voting is to suppress Democratic turnout and improve Republicans’ electoral prospects. In recent years, Democratic voters have been more inclined to vote by mail than Republicans, a pattern that has some relation to Trump’s own assertions about fraud that have driven public skepticism.
There are solid reasons for keeping election power largely within constitutional boundaries that exclude a single president. No individual should wield broad authority over election administration, since that power is susceptible to partisan manipulation. This principle reinforces the case for giving states the primary role in overseeing elections, which makes nationwide efforts to rewrite rules more challenging for the controlling party in Congress. Any such change requires specific legislation, enacted through proper constitutional channels, rather than unilateral actions by the president.
Paradoxically, in recent decades liberal Democrats were more often the proponent of expanding federal control over elections, hoping to streamline administration and widen access to voting. Notably, election-law scholar Rick Hasen—once a prominent advocate of centralized federal oversight—recently indicated that Trump’s abuses have prompted him to rethink that stance. I have long held a largely neutral view on this topic, believing decentralization has limited value in this area compared with others. Trump’s actions have compelled me to reconsider as well.
There remain plausible arguments for augmenting federal oversight of elections. For instance, Congress might step in to improve administration in states that notoriously drag out ballot counting. Any such shift, however, must occur under the Constitution’s terms: through specific legislation enacted by Congress. It cannot be left to the caprice of any individual, including the president.
