The Supreme Court previously stated that no party had standing to sue over the United States Postal Service's election rules until the agency released its final rule.
Posted by Bulwark Takes, Checked
- Sources
- 3 support1 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 70%
Bulwark TakesSep 15, 2026
The Supreme Court's August 24, 2026 per curiam order in Trump v. California lifted the injunction because the states' challenge was premature: the Court found the states lacked standing and the case unripe before USPS had issued a final rule, and it said federal courts review final rules, not proposals.
What was said
… As soon as it was clear, that what the, what the White House wanted to do here was to have this, you know, this sort of end around one weird trick to throw enormous chaos into the mail and ballot systems. We started seeing these lawsuits. And one institution that has been somewhat slow walking the process of these lawsuits. Has been the Supreme Court because they have said that until the USPS, ah released its final rule that nobody would have standing to bring these suits. Well, now that's what has finally happened, and the court, to its credit. Has followed through on its own, its own sort of timetable there and said, okay, now the rule's out, now the standing does exist, and now we will rule in favor of these states, because …
Bulwark Takes · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. The Supreme Court's August 24, 2026 per curiam order held that the federal government was likely to prevail on its argument that the States lacked standing at this early stage and the case was not ripe.[4]
Supports. The Supreme Court said the lower court lacked jurisdiction over challenges where it was speculative whether USPS would propose, weigh comments on, and issue a final rule, and stated that 'federal courts review final rules, not' proposals.[2]
Supports. Reuters reports the Supreme Court lifted the earlier injunction because the states 'sued too soon', before USPS had finalized the rule.[1]
Context. USPS's final rule was published August 21, 2026, before the Supreme Court's August 24 order, and the Court's concern was the speculative status of the rulemaking at the time of the injunction, not a literal gap in the rule's release date.[1][3]
Sources
4 sources: 1 fact-checker, 2 primary, 1 not rated
- 1Democratic-led states renew challenge to Trump plans to restrict mail-in votingreuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports, context
- 231-tro-order.pdfgovinfo.gov · primary source · cited for: supports
- 3Applicationsupremecourt.gov · primary source · cited for: context
- 4Supreme Court Order Reshapes Litigation Over Federal ...nlc.org · not rated · cited for: supports
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- The Supreme Court has an injunction blocking the USPS from implementing new rules.Mixed
- The Supreme Court blocked a Trump administration regulation regarding the United States Postal Service and mail-in ballots.True
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of states challenging the United States Postal Service's election rulemaking process.True
- The Supreme Court ruled that Judge Talwani's injunction was premature because the Postal Service rules had not been finalized and the case was not ripe.True
- The Supreme Court previously blocked Donald Trump's attempt to have the Post Office take over the electoral process.True