Monday's ruling came after the justices' June rejection of a Republican-backed challenge to state laws permitting election officials to count certain mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.
“The court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful,” the majority wrote in Monday's decision. “On that score, time will tell.”
That was little consolation to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned a dissent joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“Today’s decision does not address whether the president’s attempts to interfere with states’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful,” Sotomayor wrote. Instead, the majority punted the matter even as states face a “concrete and imminent injury” from Trump's executive order.
"This ruling violates well-established precedents concerning this court’s equitable discretion and needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections," the dissenters asserted.
Trump and Republicans have used fearmongering disinformation to amplify the nearly nonexistent "threat" of voter fraud—especially in regard to mailed ballots—and noncitizens voting in US elections. This, even as Trump has repeatedly voted by mail.
The Trump administration is trying to move control over key parts of federal election administration from the states to the federal government. The president's executive order instructs the Department of Homeland Security to create federally verified lists of citizens eligible to vote, requires states to provide voter information to the federal government, and directs United States Postal Service to condition delivery of mail ballots on compliance with its edicts.
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia sued, arguing that the president cannot unilaterally rewrite their election procedures—especially so close to the 2026 midterms—when the Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections and grants Congress, not the executive branch, authority to set election rules.
“This decision is a painful setback, but it will not be the final word," Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. "The right to vote is sacred, and no administration should be allowed to put that right in jeopardy by making it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballots."
“This fight is far from over," she added. "We are exploring our legal options.”
Democratic Association of Secretaries of State chair Cisco Aguilar of Nevada said that "today's news is disappointing, but we will continue challenging this executive order and using every tool available to defend voting rights and the constitutional authority of states to administer elections."
"The Supreme Court should protect those fundamental principles," Aguilar asserted. "Instead, it has allowed a president to reshape the electorate for his own political benefit. Every Republican running for secretary of state should tell voters where they stand: Will they defend the people’s right to choose their leaders, or support Donald Trump’s attempt to choose which Americans get to vote?”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat, said on social media: "Another day, another Trump attempt to rig elections and destroy democracy. We can stop this. VOTE this November."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “It’s a disgrace that the highest court in the nation is allowing Trump to stab a dagger into the heart of our democracy."
“Trump’s effort to turn the Postal Service into a voter suppression machine is blatantly unconstitutional—yet his MAGA Supreme Court is refusing to stop it from going forward," he added. “Trump’s malicious effort to stop mail-in voting is nothing but election interference in broad daylight. He wants to make it harder for Americans to vote so they don’t hold him accountable for the skyrocketing costs, illegal war, and rampant corruption that are a hallmark of his administration."
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) posted on social media that "Trump is desperately trying to rig the rules for the 2026 election."
"He is rushing through an unconstitutional order to limit mail voting before the midterms and the Supreme Court isn’t stopping him," the senator added. "States—not Trump—run our elections and the rule of law MUST be upheld. This fight is not over."
Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) called the ruling "shameful."
"While Donald Trump votes by mail, his allies on the Supreme Court are letting him take that right away from everyone else," she said. "This far-right majority court is once again complicit in Republicans' assault on our democracy."
Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of the Washington, DC-based watchdog group Common Cause, issued a statement blasting Monday's decision as "an absolute outrage."
"Vote-by-mail isn’t a political bargaining chip—it is a vital lifeline for our seniors, service members, busy parents, rural voters, and voters with disabilities," she said. "Restricting that right is an unacceptable, deliberate power grab designed to manufacture chaos and silence voters."
“The Trump administration can try to override state laws and control our elections, but they do not get the final say—the people do," Kase Solomón added. "We refuse to back down. Common Cause will continue to challenge any illegal attempt to limit vote-by-mail or nationalize elections.”
Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center, a litigation and policy advocacy group, lamented "yet another example of the highest court in the country granting the current administration undue latitude to engage in anti-democratic actions."
"However, this decision is purely about the timing of court challenges—not the merits of the president’s case," Potter stressed. "Americans everywhere should know that the president still has no constitutional or legal power to change our election rules, nor does this ruling mean that his second executive order on voting will ultimately be held lawful by the courts."
At the grassroots advocacy group Stand Up America, executive director Christina Harvey argued that “the Supreme Court should be putting limits on executive overreach, not helping Donald Trump push the boundaries of presidential power, undermine the Constitution, and disenfranchise voters."
"With today’s decision," she added, "the MAGA majority on the Supreme Court is bolstering Trump’s scheme to protect his allies in Congress by taking over our elections and restricting how we exercise our freedom to vote."
