WASHINGTON — The Trump administration asked the United States Supreme Court on Monday to temporarily revive key parts of President Donald Trump’s mail-voting executive order before November’s midterm elections. The filing is an emergency application for a stay, not a Supreme Court ruling, and the disputed restrictions remain blocked in the states that challenged them while the justices consider the request.

The case, Trump v. California, was placed on the court’s emergency docket as No. 26A124 on July 27. Solicitor General D. John Sauer submitted the application to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who handles emergency matters arising from the First Circuit and may act herself or refer the request to the full court.

The Justice Department wants the justices to suspend an injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts. Talwani blocked federal agencies from implementing two sections of the order for the November 3 election in 23 plaintiff states and the District of Columbia. A divided First Circuit panel declined on Saturday to pause her injunction while the government’s appeal proceeds.

Trump signed Executive Order 14399, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” on March 31. It directs the Department of Homeland Security, working with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Social Security Administration, to compile state-specific lists of citizens who will be at least 18 by an upcoming federal election. Those lists would be sent to state election officials at least 60 days before regularly scheduled federal voting.

The executive order also directs the U.S. Postal Service to consider nationwide rules for ballot mail. Its proposed framework includes official election-mail markings, trackable Intelligent Mail barcodes and state-specific lists of people participating in mail or absentee voting. Under the proposal described in the order, USPS would not transmit a person’s ballot unless that voter appeared on the relevant participation list. No final postal rule has been issued.

The administration presents the measures as safeguards against noncitizen voting and ballot fraud. Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. The order also calls for investigations where ballots are knowingly issued to ineligible people and permits federal funds to be withheld from noncompliant jurisdictions where existing law authorises that step.

Sauer’s application argues that the lawsuit is premature because federal agencies are still deciding whether and how to implement the president’s directions. The administration characterises the order as general policy guidance rather than a direct command to state election offices. It says the injunction prevents agencies from completing potentially lawful policies in time for election preparations beginning in August.

California and the other challengers argue that the Constitution assigns the administration of elections principally to states, subject to congressional regulation, and gives the president no independent power to decide voter eligibility or mail-ballot procedures. Lower courts found that the states were already facing concrete costs and operational disruption, including redesigning ballot envelopes and preparing for federal databases whose coverage and accuracy remain uncertain.

The First Circuit majority warned that introducing the changes close to the election could confuse administrators and risk disenfranchising eligible voters. Mail voting is no longer a marginal practice: about 30% of ballots in the 2024 presidential election were cast by mail, according to federal data cited by the Associated Press. Documented fraud involving mailed ballots remains rare.

The constitutional stakes extend beyond the immediate policy. Election integrity is a legitimate public duty, and accurate voter rolls deserve serious investment. But the means matter in a republic: presidential administration cannot simply replace the authority the Constitution gives states and Congress. A database assembled under severe time pressure may also omit eligible citizens, creating a risk that a fraud-prevention measure blocks lawful participation.

Justice Jackson requested a response from the states by 4 p.m. Eastern Time on August 3. The court could deny the application, grant a short administrative stay while it studies the dispute, or pause the injunction for the longer appellate process. A stay would permit implementation to move forward temporarily; it would not decide whether Trump’s order is constitutional.

The distinction is central as election deadlines approach. The underlying appeal remains before the First Circuit, and separate lawsuits concerning the order are proceeding elsewhere. For now, the Supreme Court has received the administration’s request and established a briefing deadline. It has neither approved the mail-voting restrictions nor issued a final judgment on presidential authority over federal election administration.