Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrence that there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority.
Posted by Strict Scrutiny, Checked
- Sources
- 3 support
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 95%
Strict ScrutinySep 15, 2026
The primary Supreme Court order text (Postal Service v. California, Kavanaugh concurrence, Sept. 14, 2026) states verbatim that 'there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority,' and multiple independent outlets (NPR, Axios, Times-Georgian, Post Register) quote the same language. The claim faithfully reflects the post's quotation and the concurrence's content.
The guest relays this claim without endorsing it. It counts as passed on, not against the post.
What was said
… Justice Kavanaugh decided that he was going to make it very clear that he actually does think that the president can use the Postal Service to wipe out state rules regarding mail and ballots, just can't do it right now, right? So this is what Kavanaugh wrote, quote, "There is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Services statutory authority," but he said that applying the rule now isn't justifiable because election officials will not have enough time to grapple with it. Shorter Brett Kavanaugh: I would still really like to be chief justice, Mr. …
Strict Scrutiny · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. The Supreme Court's primary order document contains Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence with the exact quoted language about a fair prospect that the final rule falls within USPS statutory authority.[1]
Supports. NPR and Axios independently quote Kavanaugh's concurrence with the same statutory-authority language, attributing it to him as a concurring opinion.[2][3]
Context. Kavanaugh paired that statement with a finding that applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious, so the quoted sentence is accurate but partial in context.[1][2]
Sources
3 sources: 1 primary, 1 tier 2, 1 not rated
- 126A305 Postal Service v. California (09/14/2026)supremecourt.gov · primary source · cited for: supports, context
- 2The Supreme Court won't allow midterm mail-in voting limitsnpr.org · tier 2 · cited for: supports, context
- 3Supreme Court strikes down USPS mail-in voting rule - Axiosaxios.com · not rated · cited for: supports
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred with the majority opinion in the Supreme Court's denial of a stay on the mail-in ballot restriction.True
- Justice Kavanaugh joined the concurrence in the Supreme Court mail-in ballot order.True
- Justice Kavanaugh justified the decision on the mail-in ballot rule by stating that it was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act because it was too close to Election Day.True
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that applying the mail-in ballot rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious because election officials lack sufficient time to implement it.True
- Justice Samuel Alito argued that the Postal Service has the authority to implement a regulation governing mail-in ballots.True