Justice Samuel Alito compared the Postal Service's mail-in ballot regulation to the requirement to list a recipient's address on mail.
Posted by Strict Scrutiny, Checked
- Sources
- 1 support2 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 40%
Strict ScrutinySep 15, 2026
The claim matches the passage's wording, but the visible excerpts do not show Alito making the address-listing comparison. Source 6 reports that he called the rule 'simply a mailing requirement similar to others,' which partly fits the claim, but the primary dissent excerpt is truncated before any such passage.
The guest relays this claim without endorsing it. It counts as passed on, not against the post.
What was said
… Yeah, yeah, okay, well, we don't know. I mean, literally, we've never, like, sweated looking at Patrick Swayze while playing a DVD and re- haven't lived. They haven't substance. I don't know, folks. In truly epic false equivalencies, Justice Alito suggested in this dissent that the Postal Service regulation committing to throw out your ballots on moss if any ballot in a batch of ballots doesn't comply with these arbitrary rules, he says this is no different than, quote, the basic requirement to list the recipient's address on one side, sir. What are FYI? My kids would send mail back from camp, and I'm just gonna say schools are not teaching kids how to address an envelope, and I didn't realize that I actually had to do this, so I don't know how my kids learn to address an envelope, but they …
Strict Scrutiny · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. Democracy Docket reports that Alito argued the USPS rule was 'simply a mailing requirement similar to others,' which partly matches the claimed analogy to ordinary mail requirements.[2]
Context. The primary Supreme Court dissent (No. 26A305) is excerpted but the visible portion does not reach any comparison to an address-listing requirement, so the specific comparison cannot be graded.[1]
Context. Other coverage describes the address and name requirement as the administration's own argument that it was 'not onerous or intrusive,' not as Alito's comparison.[3]
Sources
3 sources: 1 primary, 2 not rated
- 126A305 Postal Service v. California (09/14/2026)supremecourt.gov · primary source · cited for: context
- 2Alito, Thomas stand by Trump mail voting rule the rest of Supreme Court rejecteddemocracydocket.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 3Supreme Court rejects Trump administration's attempt to ...goodmorningamerica.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- Justice Samuel Alito argued that the Postal Service has the authority to implement a regulation governing mail-in ballots.True
- Justice Samuel Alito argued that the Administrative Procedure Act does not allow for challenges to certain Postal Service regulations.True
- Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court decision to block a Postal Service regulation regarding mail-in ballots.True
- Justices Alito and Thomas wrote that the government has a strong interest in enforcing a rule to enhance the visibility of federal ballot mail to better detect election fraud.True
- The Supreme Court declined to issue a stay of the lower court's ruling that invalidated the Postal Service's regulation on mail-in ballots.True