The Supreme Court has handed President Donald Trump a victory in his efforts to restrict mail-in voting ahead of November’s crucial midterm elections. 

In an unsigned 6-3 ruling, with the court’s liberal justices dissenting, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s June block on the President’s Executive Order targeting mail-in voting after 23 Democratic states and Washington D.C. sued the Administration for the order’s alleged unconstitutionality and presidential overreach.

Democrat lawmakers have responded furiously to Monday’s decision. “Another day, another Trump attempt to rig elections and destroy democracy,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom on social media. “We can stop this. Vote this November.”

Trump, in his push to remake American elections, has repeatedly blamed mail-in voting for widespread electoral fraud. He claimed that mail-in ballots helped him lose in the 2020 election despite audits already refuting those claims, and his own voting by mail in recent elections.

The ruling does not settle whether the Executive Order will proceed ahead of the November midterms, where the Republican Party needs to defend its narrow majority in Congress. Part of the order covering the U.S. Postal Service remains blocked under a separate injunction in August, which still needs to be resolved.

The Supreme Court also did not outright rule on the legality of Trump’s order—only on the timing of the challenges to it—and left it open to future lawsuits, which critics have signaled they will file.

Here’s how other Democrats, as well as some Republicans, have responded to the decision, and what it means for November’s pivotal midterms. 

Democrats vow legal challenges against “terrible” Supreme Court decision 

Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania said Monday that the legal battle against Trump’s Executive Order would continue, after a previous challenge put a temporary halt on the directive. 

“Not so fast. Today’s SCOTUS decision does not deal with the substance of Trump’s unconstitutional Executive Order and does not mean his illegal attempt to restrict mail-in voting will go forward,” argued Shapiro. “We’ll see the Trump Administration in court.”

Gov. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey also vowed a response to the decision. “This is a terrible decision from Trump’s Supreme Court,” she said. “States run elections, not Donald Trump. I will do everything I can to protect New Jerseyans’ right to vote – by mail and in person.”

Newsom built upon his condemnation on Monday. “California will be suing again to block these Orwellian rules from being implemented,” he said. 

“This decision is a painful setback,” Attorney General Letitia James of New York, one of the plaintiff states from June’s challenge against the Order, said in a statement. “But it will not be the final word.”

More widely, other Democrat lawmakers criticized the Supreme Court’s decision and the impact it could have on the upcoming midterms. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: “It’s a disgrace that the highest court in the nation is allowing Trump to put a dagger into the heart of our democracy,” following the decision. 

Schumer argued the Order was “blatantly unconstitutional,” and that “his MAGA Supreme Court is refusing to stop it from going forward.”

Hitting out at the President more broadly, the lawmaker continued: “[Trump] wants to make it harder for Americans to vote so they don’t hold him accountable for the skyrocketing costs, illegal war, and rampant corruption that are a hallmark of his administration.”

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada issued another direct response at the President himself. “Trump voted by mail eleven days ago. Apparently it’s good enough for him, but he wants to take away your right to vote in the same way,” she said. 

“Trump’s voter suppression order is about making it harder for Americans to hold him accountable - it is shameful that the Supreme Court is enabling it,” the lawmaker continued. 

Sen. Maria Cantwell also expressed concerns over the privacy of voters. “Today’s Supreme Court decision gets the Trump Administration one step closer to implementing its voter suppression order and forcing states to hand over personal voter data to the federal government,” she said. 

Republicans celebrate Supreme Court decision

“With today’s SCOTUS ruling, President Trump has made a giant leap forward in securing our 2026 elections,” said Utah Sen. Mike Lee, a long-standing supporter of Trump’s efforts to restrict mail-in voting. 

“Congress must still pass the SAVE America Act to secure future elections. We should’ve passed it months ago,” he continued in reference to the Act which is still awaiting approval in the Senate. 

Lee also responded to Gov. Shapiro’s commitment to continue legal challenges against the President’s Executive Order. “Why are you so determined to let non-citizens vote?” he said. 

“Bravo! Glad to see the Supreme Court get this one right. Election integrity is nonnegotiable,” said Rep. Keith Self of Texas, also pushing the Senate to approve the SAVE Act. 

“This is a major win for the security of American elections,” said White House spokesperson Lauren Bis in a statement to TIME. “These are commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders.

What does the ruling mean for federal elections, and how did we get here?

On June 25, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston ordered an injunction on provisions of Trump’s March Executive Order. Those provisions direct the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration to create “state citizenship lists” that cover eligible voters, and the Postal Service to create rules that would end sending absentee ballots to individuals not on a state’s mail-in or absentee participation list.

Talwani’s block covered the 23 plaintiff states and Washington, D.C. On July 25, the First Circuit rejected the Trump Administration’s request to block Talwani’s order pending appeal.

The Trump Administration sought the Supreme Court’s intervention in July, arguing that the lower court “lacked jurisdiction” to resolve the dispute, as implementing rules based on the President’s Order haven’t been finalized.

In the Monday ruling, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority agreed with the Trump Administration and paused Talwani’s injunction.

The top court said that Trump’s order regarding state citizenship lists was “an internal directive from the President to a subordinate” and that it “imposes no obligations on the States,” which in turn “suffer no concrete harm.”

It added that, in the case of Trump directing the Postal Service to propose rules on mail-in ballots, the legal challenge was premature and lacked standing. When states filed the suit, the Postal Service had not issued a final rule.

The Supreme Court’s majority said the district court had to engage in a “string of speculations” to arrive at its June injunction: “Federal courts review final rules, not proposed rules—and certainly not antecedent internal directives to propose a rule.”

What the ruling did not cover

While the Supreme Court’s majority paused Talwani’s June injunction for being premature, it does not cover a separate injunction—also from Talwani—on Aug. 11. Ruling on another suit, Talwani barred the Postal Service from implementing the same Executive Order for the November midterms nationwide.

The Supreme Court ruling also simply granted the Trump Administration’s emergency request to pause Talwani’s June injunction. The case on Trump’s Executive Order is still pending before the First Circuit.

It also explicitly left room for challenges on the legality of the rules stemming from Trump’s order, especially with the Postal Service’s final rule.

Norm Eisen, a voting-rights advocate leading one of several legal challenges to Trump’s order, downplayed the Supreme Court’s decision. “Please don’t overreact to Roberts Court decision on the contemplated [Postal Service] ballot moves,” Eisen posted on microblogging platform Bluesky Monday. “They simply held that the injunction came too early in the process, before there was a final rule.”

Volodymyr Zelensky may be under pressure to hold elections in Ukraine, including from his former defense minister Mykhailo Fedorov, but in remarks over the weekend, the Ukrainian President argued that doing so during the ongoing conflict with Russia would “destroy” the country.

“I believe that in a war like this, elections as such are a huge risk,” Zelensky said in remarks to journalists during a two-hour meeting Saturday—parts of which were made public on Sunday. “Elections right now are a tsunami for the country that will split Ukraine.”

Read More: Zelensky Faces Pressure to Hold Elections. What Stands in the Way?

The renewed push for wartime elections was bolstered by Fedorov, who, in a video posted to social media last week, argued that  "democracy cannot be held hostage by Russia.” Zelensky fired Fedorov, once his longtime ally, in July over disagreements in how to run the war with Russia.

“I believe that if we want to destroy the country, then during such a war we can move towards elections,” Zelensky said. 

Fedorov’s call for elections is the latest leadership test for Zelensky, whose five-year term expired in May 2024 but continues under wartime rules. Elections are suspended under martial law. 

Zelensky recently fired a top aide amid a growing corruption scandal involving members of his office. Zelensky himself has not been implicated, but it has added to his political woes.

For the first time with journalists, Zelensky addressed the ongoing controversy involving Fedorov on Saturday, claiming that the former defense minister’s actions were misguided. 

Zelensky added that “there can be no conflict at such a level between leaders,” referring to Fedorov's conflict with the former Armed Forces commander-in-chief Gen. Oleksandr Syrsky. Zelensky also replaced Syrsky last month after Fedorov’s removal spurred massive protests within the military and on the streets of Kyiv.

Syrsky was widely viewed as part of the old guard, while Fedorov had pushed for the adoption of modern warfare technology, including drones.

“I really had and still have a very positive attitude towards Mykhailo [Fedorov],” he said, according to local news outlet Interfax. “We’ve been through a lot together. But I think that he himself is going—or he's being pushed—into the wrong things.”

In a post on X, Zelensky also mentioned that the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense was under severe strain with a $27 billion shortfall. 

“At the beginning of the year, decisions were made at the Ministry to use in the first half of the year funds that were intended to be disbursed in the second half, and that money went toward drone production and other needs,” Zelensky posted. “Now, in the second half of the year, those funds need to be compensated for and supplemented.”

Zelensky discussed the defense budget deficit during a summit with Nordic and Baltic leaders in Kyiv on Sunday, where the leaders of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden agreed to continue to provide military and financial support. 

U.K. Prime Minister Andy Burnham is set to visit Ukraine Monday, in his first international visit. 

“Russia should be in no doubt of our resolve. We will not back down until there is a just and lasting peace,” Burnham said in a statement Monday.

Successive polls have shown a lack of public interest in holding elections during the war. The latest, conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology from July 20 to Aug. 3, shows that 57% of Ukrainians believe elections should be held after fighting has ended, down from 69% in March. Experts have previously said that the invasion, which Russian President Vladimir Putin launched in 2022, nixed the possibility of holding safe and secure elections in Ukraine. 

Zelensky has denied postponing the polls to cling to power, and told reporters on Saturday that holding elections “is impossible under the conditions we have now, when Putin does not want to accept any ceasefire options.”

In the same conversation, Zelensky said he believes Russia will draft an additional 300,000 troops to fight in Ukraine after Russian parliamentary elections, which are scheduled on Sept. 18-20.

Zelensky said Russia could also draft more ​troops in 2027. He expects most of the additional forces to be deployed in the Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine, where military clashes are ongoing.