The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected an appeal from former President Donald Trump to limit mail-in voting in the upcoming midterm elections. This decision means that states can continue using their existing procedures for distributing mail ballots. With voting already underway in some states, nearly a third of American voters are expected to use mail-in ballots in the November elections. The ruling is a setback for Trump, who has long opposed mail voting and falsely claimed that the process contributed to his loss in the 2020 election. The Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, rejected the administration's request in a brief decision. Four of the six conservative judges on the Court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as the three liberal judges, rejected the appeal. They suggested that the government has little chance of winning if the case is heard on its merits and that it has not shown a need to halt the initial court decision. However, two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, dissented, believing the government had justified the suspension of the initial court decision. The ruling comes less than two months before the November 3 elections, which are not going well for the Republican majority led by Trump. The American right could lose its narrow majority in the House, or even the Senate, to the Democrats. A federal judge had extended the suspension until these elections of new rules issued by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) for the delivery of mail-in ballots. These rules followed a decree by Trump aimed at more strictly regulating this method of voting. A federal appellate court had already confirmed the suspension of measures related to this decree last week, but the nine judges of the highest judicial authority in the United States had not yet ruled. Among the conservatives who supported the rejection of the Trump administration's appeal, Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote, in a separate concurrence, that while the new USPS rules could potentially be legally valid, their implementation as early as the beginning of November elections would be "arbitrary." "Election officials at the state and local levels do not have sufficient time to implement them before the elections," he noted. Voting rights organizations and Democratic state officials challenged the restrictions in court, asserting that the president lacks constitutional authority to enact rules that would "virtually eliminate mail voting on the eve of a major election." Several states lack the necessary infrastructure to rapidly shift back to in-person voting. The League of Women Voters, serving as a plaintiff in the legal case, described the proposed rules as "an extraordinary attempt to interfere with voting" and warned they would throw elections into chaos. The Supreme Court ruling ensures that efforts to carry out a safe, secure, and accurate election may proceed "without having to upend our election processes to meet unrealistic ballot mail requirements," according to Washington Democratic Secretary of State Steve Hobbs. Similarly, in Arizona, another state that relies predominantly on voting by mail, Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes emphasized that "it is crucial for us to continue rejecting the notion that access and security are mutually exclusive when it comes to running strong elections." Adding to the bipartisan consensus among state officials, Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican serving as the state’s chief election officer, posted on social media that the Supreme Court ruling ensures "Utahns can have confidence that the 2026 election will proceed as normal."