-
The Supreme Court blocked Trump's mail-ballot plan seven weeks before the midterms — three weeks after handing him a 6-3 win on the same order. His fury at Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett collides with a record that says they backed him more than he admits.
- The Supreme Court on Sept. 14 refused to revive Trump's mail-ballot rule for the midterms, finding his administration unlikely to succeed on the merits. Only Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
- Hours later Trump told his followers the justices were "merely a shell of their original selves" — an unmistakable shot at Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, the three he appointed.
- What almost nobody is repeating: the same court handed him a 6-3 win on the same executive order three weeks earlier, on Aug. 24.
-
More than 48 million Americans voted by mail in 2024, and Latino voters already face the highest signature-rejection risk in the system.
The Order That Lit the Fuse
On March 31 the president signed an executive order handing the U.S. Postal Service a role no federal agency had ever played in American elections: states would have to upload lists of voters' names and addresses into a federal system, and ballot envelopes would need approved barcodes before carriers were allowed to move them.
Two dozen Democratic-led states went to court on April 3, arguing Washington had seized a power the Constitution leaves to the states. Judge Indira Talwani in Boston agreed and froze the plan. Then came the whiplash.
On Aug. 24, the Supreme Court lifted Talwani's injunction by a 6-3 vote and let the administration start building the machinery — the citizenship lists, the envelope standards, the delivery screening. The justices were explicit that they were not blessing the plan's legality, only the procedural posture of the case. Trump treated it as vindication.
Talwani blocked the Postal Service again within days, writing that no act of Congress gave the agency authority to regulate election mail. A second preliminary injunction landed on Sept. 4. Over the weekend of Sept. 13–14, Judge Carl Nichols in Washington shut the door from a second courtroom. Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin had already started mailing ballots.
One Unsigned Paragraph, and the Explosion
The order that finished it off arrived Monday night and ran a single unsigned paragraph. Brett Kavanaugh — a Trump appointee — wrote separately to say the rule might well sit inside the Postal Service's authority, but that forcing it on election officials now would be "arbitrary and capricious" with ballots already in the mail. In other words: not never, just not seven weeks out.
Trump did not read it that way. He never typed the names Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or Barrett, but he did not have to. He wrote that certain justices were petrified of Democrats, that the court had been pushed around by the radical left, that its rulings had set the country back a century and cost it "Trillions of Dollars." Alito and Thomas, the two dissenters, he saluted as legends. Neither was his pick.
He closed with a line that reads like a man daring the bench to punish him: writing the criticism, he said, would cost him dearly for years to come.
Why the "Shell" Line Falls Apart
The loyalty test Trump is applying does not survive contact with the record.
Kavanaugh fought for him on tariffs. When the court gutted his emergency tariff powers 6-3 on Feb. 20 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, Kavanaugh wrote the longest opinion in the case — 63 pages defending the president and warning the government could be forced to refund billions of dollars to importers.
Gorsuch fought for him on birthright citizenship. When the court struck down Executive Order 14160 on June 30 in Trump v. Barbara, Gorsuch dissented alongside Thomas and Alito. Kavanaugh split his vote. The majority opinion came from Chief Justice John Roberts — appointed by George W. Bush.
Barrett and Gorsuch both joined Roberts in the tariff ruling, which is the real complaint: Trump's appointees vote with him often, just not always, and "always" appears to be the standard.
The Numbers He Isn't Posting
This court has been remarkably generous to this White House. Ballotpedia's running tracker of emergency orders shows the administration winning the large majority of its applications on the fast-track docket, letting contested policies take effect while the underlying lawsuits dragged on below.
Mail voting, meanwhile, is not a niche. More than 48 million ballots out of 156.8 million cast in 2024 arrived by mail, close to a third of the electorate, and the share was similar in 2022. Thirty-seven states and Washington, D.C., now let any voter use it without an excuse. Among voters 65 and older — the most reliably Republican age bracket in the country — the mail rate hit 36.8%, the highest of any age group.
What This Means for Latino Voters
Two things collide here, and both cut toward Hispanic households.
First, the same three justices Trump is now denouncing helped preserve birthright citizenship for millions of U.S.-born children of immigrant parents. Weakening them politically is not a legal abstraction in those homes; it is the margin.
Second, mail ballots are already rejected unevenly. A UCLA Voting Rights Project analysis found Hispanic-surnamed voters in Washington state roughly twice as likely as white voters to lose a ballot to a signature mismatch between 2019 and 2024, with the gap widening past four to one in one county. Layer a new federal barcode-and-list screen on top of that, and the voters most likely to be filtered out are the ones already failing the filters that exist.
The Administration's Answer
Attorney General Todd Blanche said the government will comply with the order, then vowed the broader push would continue through the midterms and defended the president's right to say what he thinks about the bench in public.
What Happens After November
Nothing in Monday's order kills the executive order. Kavanaugh's reasoning was about the calendar, not the Constitution, and the merits fights in Boston and Washington are still live. Trump can come back in 2027 with more runway and a cleaner record — against a court he has just told the country is a shell of itself.
That is the part worth watching. He is not only losing cases. He is burning the bench he will need next time.
