Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who handles emergency applications arising from Massachusetts, has directed the opposing states and groups to respond by 4 p.m. Wednesday.
The administration’s request challenges a preliminary injunction issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani. That order prevents the Postal Service from enforcing portions of its new regulations governing election-related mail.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that the lower court’s intervention is interfering with the Postal Service’s ability to manage federal election mail and take steps the administration says are intended to protect the integrity of the voting process.
At the heart of the controversy are new requirements concerning ballot envelopes and voter information.
Under the Postal Service rule, states would be required to follow specific envelope standards and submit certain voter information through a USPS portal before federal-election ballots are mailed.
The Trump administration argues that these requirements are part of the Postal Service’s lawful authority over the nation’s mail system.
Officials also reject the argument that the regulations amount to an unconstitutional attempt by the federal government to take control of state-run elections.
The current fight traces back to a March executive order from President Donald Trump directing federal agencies to pursue a series of measures involving citizenship verification, voter eligibility and voting by mail.
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia responded with a lawsuit challenging portions of the order.
The states argued that the administration had crossed a constitutional line by interfering with powers traditionally reserved for the states, including the administration of elections.
Talwani previously blocked several disputed provisions from taking effect before the November election.
But the Supreme Court stepped into the dispute in August and allowed the administration to proceed for the time being.
Importantly, the justices did not issue a final ruling on whether the policies themselves were constitutional.
Instead, the Court determined that the states’ lawsuit had come too early because the challenged provisions had not yet been put into effect and the states had not demonstrated sufficient injury at that stage.
That situation changed when the Postal Service finalized its new ballot-mail regulations.
The final rule gave the states concrete requirements to follow, triggering another round of litigation and putting the issue directly back before the federal courts.
On August 27, Talwani issued a temporary restraining order blocking portions of the Postal Service rule for 14 days.
The order covered provisions involving ballot-envelope specifications as well as the submission of voter information.
The administration then appealed to the Supreme Court on September 3, asking the justices to halt the temporary order.
But the legal landscape shifted again when Talwani replaced that temporary restriction with a preliminary injunction Friday.
Because the new injunction superseded the earlier order, the administration withdrew its September 3 Supreme Court application Sunday.
It then filed a new emergency request challenging the preliminary injunction.
Sauer maintains that the two lower-court rulings are substantially alike and argues that Talwani effectively made a judgment about the legality of the Postal Service rule before the underlying litigation has been resolved.
The administration is also warning that time is running out.
The November election calendar is already moving forward, with North Carolina having begun mailing ballots and Alabama scheduled to start sending them September 9. Other states are expected to follow shortly afterward.
That timing is central to the administration’s argument before the Supreme Court.
Government lawyers contend that every additional day the injunction remains in place could create consequences that cannot be easily reversed.
Once ballots are mailed without following the administration’s requirements, officials argue, those ballots cannot simply be retrieved, corrected and sent through the system again.
The states opposing the regulations see the situation very differently.
They argue that forcing election officials to adopt new federal procedures at this stage could disrupt established voting systems, create additional administrative burdens and cause confusion with the election rapidly approaching.
That leaves the Supreme Court facing another high-stakes election dispute with November voting just weeks away.
After the Wednesday response deadline, Jackson could decide the emergency request herself or refer the matter to the full Supreme Court for consideration.
The justices’ decision could determine whether the Trump administration is able to enforce the contested Postal Service requirements while the larger constitutional fight continues.
For voters, states and election officials, the stakes are immediate.
What began as a broader dispute over the president’s March executive order has now evolved into a direct legal confrontation over how federal election ballots are handled through the nation’s postal system.
With ballots already moving in at least one state and more scheduled to follow, the Supreme Court may soon be forced to decide whether the administration’s rules can remain in place—or whether the lower court’s injunction will continue to block them through the midterm election.
