The Supreme Court's conservative majority voted 6-3 Monday to lift a lower court injunction that had blocked federal agencies—including the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security—from enforcing President Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting. The ruling was procedural: the court did not rule on whether the restrictions are constitutional, leaving that question for lower courts to decide as the case moves forward ahead of November's midterm elections.
New York Attorney General Letitia James called the outcome a "painful setback" but said it was not the "final word" and that the state was actively exploring its remaining legal options. "The fight is far from over," she said.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the Supreme Court had "reopened the door" for the Trump administration to make voting harder and emphasized that the ruling was not decided on the "merits of the case." Bonta argued the Constitution gives the president "no authority" over how states administer their elections. "California will keep fighting what he described as unlawful federal overreach."
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown criticized the court's conservative majority directly, saying they do not appear to recognize "the grave threat the president's actions pose for our democracy." Brown noted, however, that the ruling does not "bless the substance of the president's actions" and that Washington stands ready to "take action to protect the integrity of our elections and prevent this clearly unconstitutional overreach."
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes characterized the ruling as "procedural" and argued that states—not the Postal Service and not the president—run their own elections. Her statement echoed the central legal argument Democratic officials are building: that the executive order encroaches on authority the Constitution assigns to the states.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the Supreme Court "just let the Trump Admin move ahead (for now) with its plan to disenfranchise voters across the country" and announced California will sue again to block what he called "Orwellian rules" from taking effect. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was direct: "Donald Trump does not run elections here in Pennsylvania—or in any state." Shapiro vowed to challenge the Trump administration in court and noted that the ruling "does NOT deal with the substance of Trump's unconstitutional Executive Order."
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said the decision does not change the underlying legal reality—that Trump "does not get to rewrite election law or suppress the right to vote with the stroke of a pen." Her statement previewed the argument Democratic-led states plan to press as the case moves forward: that the executive order's constitutional defects survive the Supreme Court's procedural decision.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. went further than the governors. He accused Trump of trying to "turn the Postal Service into a voter suppression machine" and called the Supreme Court's conservative bloc his "MAGA Supreme Court" for refusing to block the order. "Senate Democrats will fight every attempt to hijack mail-in voting and rig the rules before voters have their say this November," Schumer said.
The core constitutional dispute centers on which level of government controls election administration. Democratic officials argue Article I of the Constitution gives states the authority to set the time, place and manner of elections—a power, they contend, a presidential executive order cannot override. The Trump administration's position, reflected in its successful appeal to the Supreme Court, is that federal agencies have a legitimate role in how mail ballots are handled and processed.
With the injunction now lifted, federal agencies can move ahead with implementing the restrictions while litigation continues. Democratic attorneys general in multiple states have signaled they will file new legal challenges targeting the substance of the executive order rather than seeking to reinstate the earlier injunction. The midterm elections are roughly ten weeks out, compressing the timeline for any new court action to take effect before ballots are cast.
