Brazil’s top court to decide on unprecedented probe of sitting justice

Brazil’s top court to decide on unprecedented probe of sitting justice. Image source, Getty ImagesByLisa Lambert, Washington, Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu and Kayla EpsteinPublished15 September 2026, 00:55 BSTUpdated 2 hours agoThe US Supreme Court has rejected President Donald Trump's plan to restrict voting by mail before November's midterm elections, in a setback for the White House.

What happened

The justices upheld a federal judge's order that temporarily blocked the US Postal Service (USPS) from moving forwards with new requirements for postal ballots. "Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court," the president wrote on Truth Social. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, agreed with the ruling, but indicated he might later rule in Trump's favour as litigation in the case continues. Meanwhile some Republican-led states, including Florida, Louisiana, and Montana, supported the president in court filings.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion that there was "at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority". Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, also conservatives, dissented. In a Truth Social post, Trump criticised the top court's Monday decision, as well as other key rulings against him such as striking down his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, and also a key element of his tariff policies.

The wider picture

"The Supreme Court has really let our Country down! " he wrote, alleging some justices were "totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America". "These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court," the president wrote. Trump signs executive order attempting to change mail-in votingPublished2 AprilSupreme Court allows late-arriving mail-in ballots in defeat for TrumpPublished29 JuneAbout 30% of voters, mostly Democrats, cast postal ballots in the general election two years ago.

Seven Republican state election officials warned the justices, external that allowing significant changes to mail ballot rules so close to the midterm elections would "lead to mistakes, delays, and confusion". Local election officials told the BBC this week they were proceeding as normal but had begun drafting contingency plans in case the court upended existing mail ballot procedures. "Today's Supreme Court decision prevents the US Postal Service from sowing chaos in our elections," Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement.

In court filings, the Trump administration maintained the new USPS rules were constitutional.

What has been reported

Last week, a US appeals court refused to put Judge Talwani's order on hold. Some states have already begun distributing mail-in ballots ahead of the midterm elections, which will decide which party controls Congress. At this point, we already have our envelopes printed," Josh Zygielbaum, the Adams County, Colorado clerk and recorder, told the BBC the day before the Supreme Court ruled. The Supreme Court decision is not the first setback on postal ballots for Trump.

In June, the justices ruled that states may count ballots postmarked by election day, rejecting the Trump administration's push to block votes being tallied when they are received after polls close. Related topicsVoting rights in the United StatesUS Supreme CourtUS politicsDonald TrumpPostal voting Trump called the decision a blow to his political party. One legal group said in response that the decision would prevent the USPS from "sowing chaos in our elections".

What happens next

The ruling is unlikely to be the final word on the matter. Trump, who argued the rules would combat electoral fraud, signed an executive order in March that directed the USPS to deliver ballots only to voters on lists of citizens. Legal challenges argued that the move violated states' constitutional rights to run elections. Election officials from 24 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia also warned that the proposed changes were not ready for implementation and could prevent ballots from reaching voters.

But he argued that "applying the rule in the 2026 elections would be arbitrary and capricious". They wrote that the challenge to Trump's order was a "Hail Mary pass" that was unlikely to be successful ultimately. However, several states like Oregon, Washington, and Colorado rely heavily or entirely on mail ballots for their elections, requiring Republicans to use the system as well.