08/28/2026
Can the President Change How Mail-In Voting Works?
President Trump scored a 6–3 victory at the Supreme Court this week involving his executive order on federal elections and mail-in voting.
But what exactly did the Supreme Court decide?
It did not issue a final ruling declaring Trump’s executive order constitutional.
That distinction is the focus of this Legislative Larry episode.
On March 31, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” Among other provisions, the order directs federal agencies to assist states with citizenship-verification information, prioritizes certain election-law enforcement, and directs the U.S. Postal Service toward new requirements involving mail and absentee ballots.
That immediately raises an important constitutional question: Who actually gets to make the rules?
Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives state legislatures authority over the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections while specifically giving Congress the power to “make or alter” those regulations. The executive branch, meanwhile, is responsible for executing and enforcing federal laws passed by Congress.
A coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia challenged parts of Trump’s order, arguing that the President was attempting to exercise election authority belonging to states and Congress.
Lower courts blocked challenged provisions, but on August 24 the Supreme Court intervened, 6–3.
Here is the important part:
The Supreme Court’s action was not a final decision on whether the executive order is constitutional.
The Court concluded that the states had challenged the administration before federal agencies had finished taking the actions necessary to implement the order. In other words, the challenge was premature.
That means:
PROCEDURAL RULING ≠ CONSTITUTIONAL APPROVAL.
There is another complication. A separate federal injunction obtained by voting-rights organizations continues to block implementation of the mail-ballot provisions for the November 2026 election. That litigation is continuing as well.
So mail-in voting rules did not suddenly change nationwide because of the Supreme Court’s decision.
And that brings us to Larry’s big lesson:
A Supreme Court victory does not always mean, “The Supreme Court said it’s constitutional.”
Sometimes it means the Court concluded, “This lawsuit isn’t ready yet.”
The larger constitutional question — how far a president can use executive authority to influence the administration of federal elections — remains unresolved.
SOURCES:
The White House — Executive Order 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/ensuring-citizenship-verification-and-integrity-in-federal-elections/
U.S. Government Publishing Office — Executive Order 14399 / Federal Register
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2026-04-03/2026-06601
U.S. Government Publishing Office — Compilation of Presidential Documents
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-202600219
Federal District Court — League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, August 11, 2026 preliminary injunction
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1%3A2026cv11549/298449/183
AI DISCLOSURE:
Facts Matter develops the topics, questions, and original commentary for these graphics. ChatGPT, an AI tool from OpenAI, is used as a research and editing assistant to check accuracy, expand explanations, identify additional information, and help organize the final presentation. AI tools are also used to create the illustrations and graphic design under the direction of Facts Matter.
Readers are encouraged to review the sources and share credible information that adds context, provides additional facts, or challenges what is presented.
