CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS

On Monday, September  14, 2026, the Supreme Court voted 7-2 to deny President Trump’s application to cancel a lower court injunction that prohibited the United States Postal Service from implementing its new rule to regulate voting by mail in the upcoming elections for Congress. See Sup.Ct. Order of September 14, 2026 in its Case No. 26A305. The President had ordered the Postal Service to draw up a rule to “enhance election integrity” by restricting mail-in balloting to named voters who have been pre-qualified by the Postal Service to cast their votes by mail. See President’s Executive Order 14399 of March 31, 2026, 91 Fed.Reg. 17125 (April 3, 2026). The new Postal Service rule attempts to do that. See Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service Domestic Mail Manual, Section 24, entitled “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections.” By leaving the lower court’s temporary injunction in place, the Supreme Court has emphatically told the President that his powers as President do not include the power to violate the United States Constitution.

As discussed on this page last week, the Constitution clearly prohibits the President from trying to regulate the “manner” of federal elections. The Constitution explicitly reserves that power to the individual states or else to the United States Congress. The applicable provision reads as follows:  

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

U. S. Const., Article I, Section 4

As observed last week, neither the United States Postal Service nor the President of the United States can claim to be a “state” “legislature” or the “Congress.”  

The Court’s decision this past Monday certainly weakens the power of the President. But limiting the powers of governmental officials, including the President of the United States, was exactly what the founders of the United States intended, when they issued the Declaration of Independence and adopted the United States Constitution. Respect for the rule-of-law as explicitly stated in the United States Constitution absolutely required the Court’s decision last Monday.

/s/ Dan D. Rhea