2026-09-14T23:34:22.474Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms
最高法院周一驳回了总统唐纳德·特朗普有争议的计划，该计划旨在修改全美向选民邮寄选票的方式，此举遭到了选举官员的驳斥，他们警告称，如果该计划在今年中期选举前生效，将造成灾难性后果。
作为近年来最高法院快速审理日程中最重要的案件之一，多数大法官否决了这项原本将赋予美国邮政服务局前所未有的权力、可截留数百万张邮寄选票的程序。就连一些共和党籍选举官员也警告称，该提议可能引发混乱和大规模剥夺选民资格的情况。
最高法院在简短的裁决中表示，政府“不太可能在其诉求的实质内容上胜诉”。保守派大法官塞缪尔·阿利托和克拉伦斯·托马斯投了反对票。
这一决定对特朗普来说是重大失利。多年来，特朗普一直毫无根据地指控邮寄投票存在大规模欺诈行为，而他自己却一直在通过邮寄方式投票。
特朗普政府将其提议包装为一项“适度”的邮政监管改革，旨在防范所谓的选举欺诈。但特朗普的批评者称，这一举措是违宪的权力攫取，甚至美国邮政服务局都未做好全面实施的准备。
美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）已联系白宫寻求置评。
最高法院保守派成员布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官发表了协同意见，解释称他认为该提议可能属于美国邮政局的职权范围，但“州和地方选举官员没有足够时间在选举前合理落实这项规则”。
阿利托在异议意见中表示，他不认为许多选举官员提出的落实该规则的实际担忧，足以让挑战该规则的州和投票权组织胜诉。
“政府在执行这项规则方面有重大利益，落实该规则还将‘提升联邦邮寄选票的透明度’，以便更好地检测选举欺诈，”阿利托写道。“另一方面，原告州提及了在中期选举临近之际落实该规则的实际影响。我非常重视这个问题，但它不足以让我支持驳回这项申请。”
除了挑战该提议的民主党领导的州和投票权组织之外，两党选举管理人员、前州长等人组成的联盟在大量诉状中警告大法官，新系统根本无法实施。美国邮政局的规则要求各州将大量选民数据上传到一个尚未上线的在线门户。该规则还要求修改已经采购的选票信封，而越来越多的州已经开始邮寄这些信封。
政府辩称，这些改革是为了保障选票安全，确保只有符合资格的选民才能收到选票。但由二十多个民主党领导的州和投票团体组成的联盟将这项努力描述为长期毫无根据地指控邮寄投票系统存在大规模选民欺诈的总统发动的权力攫取。
这起备受瞩目的紧急上诉于上周提交，是特朗普政府第三次就该政策紧急上诉至最高法院。8月下旬，最高法院允许总统推进该政策，但此举是基于与挑战该政策的诉讼时机有关的技术原因。几天后，一家下级联邦法院阻止了这些变更生效。
根据美国宪法，确定投票程序的是各州和国会，而非白宫或邮局。
特朗普的命令要求各州向美国邮政服务局提交合格选民名单。该机构将被禁止向不在这些名单上的个人递送各州邮寄的选票。该命令还要求各州在选票信封上使用追踪条形码。此外，它“优先”对向非公民或其他无投票资格者寄送或接收选票的州选举官员提起联邦诉讼。
就在最高法院权衡法律争议之际，一名美国邮政局举报人挺身而出，发出了一系列严峻警告。这名举报人的报告明确表示，如果信封上的条形码出现问题，不仅单张选票会被截留，相关官员甚至会拒绝递送该信封所在的整批邮件。该举报人还描述了搭建在线数据共享系统的仓促过程，称这可能会让这项复杂的计划更容易导致大规模剥夺选民资格的情况发生。
多年来，特朗普一直宣扬邮寄投票的阴谋论，以此诋毁他输掉的2020年总统选举。但不当投票的情况仍然极为罕见，政府从未提供证据证明存在足以影响2020年大选或任何其他选举结果的大规模欺诈行为。
多家联邦法院否决了这项提议。上周末，华盛顿特区由特朗普任命的联邦地区法官卡尔·尼科尔斯成为最新一位针对中期选举暂停实施美国邮政局这项规则的法官。
本文为突发新闻，将持续更新。
Supreme Court rejects Trump’s plan to limit mail-in voting in midterms
2026-09-14T23:34:22.474Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country, rebuffing a proposal that election officials warned would have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect for this year’s midterms.
In one of the most significant cases to appear on the court’s quick-turn docket in years, a majority of the justices blocked the procedure that would have given the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots.Even some GOP election officials cautioned that the proposal could lead to chaos and mass disenfranchisement.
The court said that the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” in its brief order. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The decision is a significant loss for the president, who for years has railed against mail voting with false allegations of extensive fraud, while continuing to vote by mail himself.
The administration had framed its proposal as a “modest” change to postal regulations intended to protect against that alleged fraud. Trump’s critics, however, described the maneuver as an unconstitutional power grab that the US Postal Service wasn’t even fully prepared to carry out.
CNN has reached out to the White House for comment.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a concurrence explaining that he thought the proposal may be within the authority of the USPS, but that “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”
In his dissent, Alito said he didn’t believe the practical concerns of implementing the rule raised by many election officials was enough for the states and voting rights groups that challenged the rule to win.
“The government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also ‘enhance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail’ in order to better detect election fraud,” Alito wrote. “On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical effects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elections. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.”
In addition to the Democratic-led states and voting rights groups that challenged the proposal, a bipartisan coalition of election administrators, former governors and others warned the justices in a flood of briefs that the new system was simply not possible to implement. The Postal Service rule required states to upload mass amounts of data on voters to an online portal that wasn’t yet online. And it required changes to ballot envelopes that had already been purchased, and that an increasing number of states had already begun to drop in the mail.
The administration argued that the changes were needed to secure the ballots and ensure that only eligible voters receive them. But a coalition of two dozen Democratic-led states and voting groups have described the effort as a power grab by a president who has long falsely alleged widespread voter fraud in mail ballot systems.
Filed last week, the high-profile emergency appeal was the third time the Trump administration raced up to the Supreme Court on the policy. In late August, the court allowed the president to proceed, though it did so for technical reasons that had to do with the timing of the lawsuit challenging the policy. A lower federal court blocked the changes from going into effect days later.
Under the Constitution, it is states and Congress that determine voting procedures, not the White House nor the post office.
The president’s order required states to submit lists of eligible voters to the US Postal Service. The agency would be barred from delivering ballots mailed by states to people not on those lists. It also required states to use tracking barcodes on ballot envelopes. And it “prioritized” federal prosecution of state election officials who send or receive ballots to non-citizens or others ineligible to vote.
While the Supreme Court was weighing the legal issues, a Postal Service whistleblower came forward with a stark series of warnings. The whistleblower’s report made clear that not only would one ballot be withheld if there was a problem with the barcode on its envelope, but rather officials would decline to deliver the entire batch of mailings that envelope was a part of. The whistleblower also described a rushed process to stand up an online data sharing system that the person said could make the complicated plan even more vulnerable to potential mass disenfranchisement.
Trump has for years touted conspiracy theories about mail voting as a way to discredit the 2020 presidential election that he lost. But improper voting remains exceedingly rare, and the administration has never provided evidence of widespread fraud on a scale that could influence the outcome of the 2020 election, or any other contest.
Multiple federal courts rejected the proposal. Over the weekend, a US District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump nominee in Washington, DC, became the latest to put the USPS rule on hold for the midterms.
This story is breaking and will be updated.