Alito and Thomas Support Trump’s Mail Voting Restrictions Amid Supreme Court Rejection

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas defended President Donald Trump’s effort to restrict mail voting after the majority of the Court declined to allow the restrictions to take effect before the midterm elections. In a dissent joined by Thomas, Alito presented the Court’s only defense of Trump’s initiative just weeks before the elections. Alito argued that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) rule implementing the order was a standard mailing requirement, not an extensive regulation of mail voting. None of Trump’s three appointees supported lifting a lower court order that barred the rule from being implemented before the election. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett sided with the majority opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion indicating that it was too close to the election to implement the rule, but he left open the possibility for future implementation. Alito contended that the Postal Service’s rule was within the authority granted by Congress to regulate the mail system. He stated that challengers needed to prove the rule was 'ultra vires' or beyond the Postal Service’s power, which he rejected. The rule established new envelope requirements for mail ballots that states needed to submit for review before the election and mandated states to provide a list of authorized mail voters to the federal government. Alito noted that the rule’s requirements were similar to other mailing requirements that do not classify noncompliant mail as 'nonmailable material.' A federal district court judge in Washington, D.C., issued a second injunction blocking the rule, stating that it likely exceeds the Postal Service’s statutory authority. Alito argued that the challengers did not adequately demonstrate that the voting restrictions were unreasonable. He expressed no opinion on the likelihood of the government succeeding in a review of the Postal Service’s powers but claimed that the government had shown a strong case against the plaintiffs’ ultra vires claim. Senator Andy Kim (D-N.J.) criticized the Supreme Court’s non-unanimous decision, stating it was concerning that two justices were willing to undermine the Constitution. Kavanaugh, while joining the majority, acknowledged that the final rule might fall within the Postal Service’s authority but believed there was insufficient time for local election officials to prepare. Trump has claimed that his voting order aims to secure elections from fraud, although his administration has not provided evidence of mail-voting fraud to support the restrictions. Alito contended that the government has a vested interest in securing the election system and that halting the mail voting rule would harm the federal government more than the states. He stated that various court orders delaying the mail voting rule hindered the Postal Service’s ability to implement the regulation before the midterms. Alito criticized the Supreme Court’s Democrats for contributing to the delays, noting that the Court spent significant time drafting opinions despite the government’s notice that it would not publish a final rule while under injunctions. The Supreme Court previously ruled in August that attempts to halt the mail voting rule were premature. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the Republican majority in a dissent, accusing the Court of creating 'chaos and uncertainty' for the upcoming midterm elections.