Berlin, September 16, 2026. The US Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's emergency request on Monday evening to immediately apply new federal rules for mail-in voting, just seven weeks before the November 3 midterm elections. According to Tagesschau, the judges estimated, in a brief statement, that it was "unlikely that the government would prevail" in challenging a lower court's injunction. The practical consequence is that states will continue to send out mail-in ballots according to current standards, as has already begun in some places, while primaries continue in all 50 states, which started on March 3 in Arkansas, North Carolina, and Texas, and ended on September 15 in Delaware - with 36 states also renewing their governors.

The FAZ takes a closer look at the political implications of the episode. The White House plan, the newspaper writes, aimed to transform the postal service into a kind of federal oversight authority over a decentralized electoral system, as intended by the Constitution, a plan described as "authoritarian" by the newspaper, which recalls that two of the nine judges expressed detailed dissent in its favor. But for the FAZ, the legal defeat costs Trump nothing: his real goal was not the security of the election, but the uncertainty it installs in public opinion. The narrative of massive mail-in voting fraud, according to the newspaper, remains unfounded in serious studies - but its political effect is already achieved among voters who now doubt the outcome of the November election.

The newspaper also notes the relief, even in states run by Republicans, where election officials will not have to urgently reorganize an already ongoing election. The Justice Department, the FAZ notes, continues to pursue lawsuits against states, a sign that the executive branch does not give up on influencing the organization of the vote despite this setback before the highest court.

Buenos Aires, September 16, 2026. The Argentine press is primarily focusing on the domestic political implications of the setback inflicted on Donald Trump by the Supreme Court on Monday evening, rather than just the legal debate. Clarín emphasizes that the high court has "dispelled much of the uncertainty" that weighed on the preparations for the midterm elections, by rejecting the presidential attempt to have the postal service play a central role in determining who could receive an absentee ballot. The plan, resulting from a decree signed in March, required states to adopt a uniform envelope model and transmit the lists of eligible voters to an online portal still under construction; the postal service could have refused to deliver ballots to non-compliant states. A whistleblower report cited by Clarín warned that these requirements risked preventing the sending of millions of ballots, effectively depriving many voters of their right to vote in the middle of the election.

The decision is presented as "a victory for the status quo": the thousands of electoral offices in the country will be able to send ballots as planned, without submitting to new postal rules imposed at the last minute. California's Democratic Secretary of State, Shirley Weber, whose state sends an absentee ballot to every voter, welcomed the decision: "we can finally move forward and return to what we do best: running our elections without a dark cloud above us."

Canberra, September 16, 2026. The Australian press is devoting most of its coverage not to the content of the US Supreme Court ruling, but to the reaction, deemed unprecedented, of President Donald Trump against the judges he himself appointed. ABC News and SBS News are reporting in detail on the attack published on Truth Social, where Mr. Trump describes his own nominees as a "shell of their original selves" and accuses the Court of having given in to the "Radical Left". For Australian media, the episode illustrates the fragility of the American judicial system's checks and balances in the face of presidential pressure, even when it has been shaped by the president in office himself.

The ruling, unsigned and brief, as is customary for emergency requests, maintains the blockage of new rules imposed on the US postal service (USPS) for mail-in voting ahead of the midterms on November 3. ABC details the rejected mechanism: states would have had to transmit lists of registered voters for mail-in voting and use envelopes approved by the agency, trackable by barcodes. Only two conservative judges, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, publicly expressed their disagreement — whom Mr. Trump hailed as "legends, both". The conservative majority he himself built (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, 6-3 since 2020) does not appear to be unanimous, but none of the Australian articles detail the motives of the two dissenters or the separate opinion filed. The administration has also indicated that it can present similar rules for the 2028 election, which, according to the Australian press, limits the practical scope of this Democratic victory to the November election alone.

Brussels, September 16, 2026. The Belgian press first retains a word: "reversal". On Monday evening, the US Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's emergency request to impose new rules on the postal service for mail-in voting, leaving in place the decisions of lower courts in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia that blocked this plan for the November 3 midterm elections. According to DH, four of the six conservative judges on the Court, "including its president, John Roberts", as well as the three progressive judges, rejected the request, estimating that "the government has little chance of winning" on the merits and that it has "not demonstrated the necessity" of suspending the initial decision. La Libre Belgique recalls that this vote now concerns "between one-third and half of American voters" and that the Court, in ruling thus, seeks above all to avoid "confusion, if not chaos" by November 3, without settling the substance of the dispute — which, the newspaper notes, does not dispel "all concerns" about the smooth conduct of the election, "far from it".

La Libre Belgique emphasizes that the majority ruled for practical reasons: it is impossible to apply the requested changes within the deadlines, as states have already begun sending out ballots, and "voters have even already voted". Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, on the other hand, demanded "the immediate application of the reform" despite this risk of confusion.

Ottawa, September 16, 2026. The US Supreme Court refused on Monday, September 14, 2026, in the late evening, to allow the postal service to apply the new rules of the Trump administration on mail-in voting, less than seven weeks before the November 3 midterm elections that will decide control of Congress. The judges left in place the order of federal judge Indira Talwani, in Boston, which blocks the measure as long as the appeals of states and voting rights advocacy groups are ongoing. In a brief one-paragraph order, the majority ruled that "the government has little chance of winning on the merits." The Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, gave no other justification, as is customary on its emergency docket.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, estimated that the restrictions should not come into effect for this election, but could rule in favor of the administration if the case came back before the Court. Samuel Alito, joined by Clarence Thomas, dissented: comparing some of the plaintiffs' arguments to a "Hail Mary pass" unlikely to succeed, he recalled that "the postal service has broad power to regulate mail."

The administration's plan would have required states to transmit to the postal service the list of their registered voters for mail-in voting, adopt a uniform envelope format, and submit these lists to an online portal; the postal service could have refused to deliver ballots from non-compliant states. Election officials had deemed any overhaul unrealistic in the remaining weeks: Alabama, North Carolina, and Wisconsin were already sending out ballots before the decision.

Berne, September 16, 2026. The US Supreme Court rejected on Monday, September 14, the Trump administration's emergency request to impose new rules on the postal service for mail-in voting in the case of USPS vs. California. An unusual majority, reported by SRF to be 7 votes to 2, left in place the suspension issued by a federal judge for the midterm election on November 3. Conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh joined a concurring opinion, estimating that the new rules, even if valid in principle, would be "arbitrary" to apply so close to the vote. Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas expressed their disagreement.

The presidential decree, signed at the end of March, required states to transmit to the Post Office the list of their registered voters for mail-in voting, to install specific printers, and to apply a system of bar-coded envelopes. Washington justified the measure by citing the fight against electoral fraud - a phenomenon for which, notes SRF, evidence of widespread fraud remains rare. The appeal was brought by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and twenty-two other Democratic states; the administration claims it can submit new rules for 2028.

Madrid, September 16, 2026. The Spanish press notes that the US Supreme Court's decision is a new judicial setback for Donald Trump, just seven weeks before the November 3 midterm elections. The conservative-majority court, with 6 votes to 3, rejected the Republican administration's emergency request on Monday, September 14, which aimed to impose new rules on the US Postal Service (USPS) for mail-in voting. ElDiario.es mentions a "new reversal by the Supreme Court for Trump" that, according to the newspaper, puts an end to a series of intertwined judicial actions and election preparations, already underway in several states just 50 days before the vote.

The White House plan required states to transmit the list of registered voters for remote voting to the postal service, acquire specific printers, and apply a new barcode verification system, which, according to Expansión, could jeopardize entire batches of ballots due to a single identification error. The decision confirms the blockages previously pronounced by Boston federal judge Indira Talwani and a Washington judge over the weekend.

The Spanish press details the divergent opinions. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion cited by El País, estimates that "local election officials do not have enough time to reasonably apply the rule before the elections," while hinting that he could rule in favor of the government in the future. Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, expressed their disagreement: according to ElDiario.es, Alito believes that the Postal Service "has broad authority to regulate mail" and probably has the power to apply the restrictions proposed by Trump.

Paris, September 16, 2026. The US Supreme Court rejected, on Monday, September 14, 2026, the emergency request from the Trump administration to impose new rules on the postal service for mail-in voting, ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. The French press emphasizes the composition of the majority that sealed this setback: four of the six conservative judges on the Court, including its president John Roberts, joined the three progressive judges to reject the request, according to Le Monde, RFI, and France 24. The judges estimate, in a brief decision, that "the government has little chance of winning when the case is tried on the merits" and that it has not demonstrated the need to suspend the lower court's decision. This result, seven votes to nine according to 20 Minutes, is presented as proof that the disagreement goes beyond the usual partisan divide of the high court. Only Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas expressed their dissent; Alito estimating that the postal service "has broad authority to regulate mail" and probably has the power to apply the restrictions, according to France 24. Brett Kavanaugh joined a concurring opinion, while leaving the door open to a return of the case to the Court after the midterms.

The French media are reporting the anger of the American president, who called the decision "horrible" and "highly political" on Truth Social on Tuesday, accusing certain judges of being "intimidated" by the Democrats and unable to "save our America", according to BFMTV. However, Justice Minister Todd Blanche has assured that the executive "will comply with the Supreme Court's decision". The headlines emphasize the practical scope: the 50 states can keep their current procedures, which concerned nearly a third of voters in 2024 according to States United, while the mailing of the first ballots had already begun in some states. The appeal came from California Attorney General Rob Bonta and twenty-two other Democratic states. For the French press, the episode illustrates less an immediate electoral issue than an institutional limit set for the executive: the Court reminds that the rules of the game cannot be changed at the last minute, without settling the merits of the law, which the administration has already announced it wants to reopen before 2028.

London, 16 September 2026. The US Supreme Court rejected on Monday evening the Trump administration's emergency request to impose new rules on the postal service for mail-in voting, in the case of United States Postal Service against California. For the British press, this setback, which occurred seven weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, illustrates the resistance of judicial counter-powers to an executive seeking to centralize control over the organization of the election.

The judges left in place the order of a federal judge blocking, for this election, a plan that required states to transmit to the postal service the list of their registered voters for mail-in voting, to acquire specific printers and to apply a new barcode system. Trump justified this reform by the fight against electoral fraud, claiming that mail-in voting would be prone to abuse and would allow non-citizens to vote; the appeals filed estimated, on the contrary, that the measure encroached on the constitutional right of states to organize their own elections. Conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by Trump, joined the majority while leaving the door open for the future: he estimates that there is "at least one reasonable perspective that the final rule falls within the legal authority of the postal service", but that "applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious".

Judges Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, also conservatives, expressed their disagreement, describing the appeal as a "Hail Mary pass" unlikely to succeed on the merits and recalling that "the postal service has broad authority to regulate mail".

The United States government saw the Supreme Court reject, on Monday evening, by a 7-2 vote, the Trump administration's emergency request to enforce new restrictions on mail-in voting before the November 3 midterms. In the case of United States Postal Service vs. California, the nine judges left in place the order of a federal judge that blocks the plan, deemed "unlikely to succeed on the merits".

The White House's project required states to transmit to the USPS the list of their registered voters for mail-in voting, to adopt bar-coded envelopes and to have their models validated by the postal service before sending them. Carried by a presidential decree from March, this mechanism had already been suspended by federal judge Indira Talwani in Boston, a decision upheld by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, September 10, and then by a second federal judge, Carl Nichols, in Washington, appointed by Trump himself.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by Trump, wrote a nuanced concurring opinion, co-signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: he estimates that there is "a reasonable prospect" that the rule does indeed fall within the legal authority of the USPS, but that applying it as of 2026 would be "arbitrary and capricious", as local election officials would not have "enough time" to comply. Judges Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas expressed their disagreement, judging that Congress has indeed empowered the postal agency to set these rules and describing as "sibylline" the arguments of harm put forward by the plaintiffs.