Supreme Court Amicus Brief Against Executive Order 14399

The Society for the Rule of Law has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump, et al., v. State of California, et al., and in State of Alabama, et al., v. State of California, et al., in support of a preliminary injunction against the Trump Administration’s Executive Order 14399—an order that attempts to use the United States Postal Service to collect lists of mail-in or absentee voters. The amicus brief, divided into four parts, defends the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to keep the injunction in place on procedural, statutory, and constitutional grounds.

First, the brief argues that the respondents have established standing and ripeness and have demonstrated irreparable harm, satisfying the necessary threshold for a preliminary injunction.

Part I shows that under recent precedents, there is already sufficient harm for standing, ripeness, and irreparable harm, particularly as the federal Applicants have stated that they may later argue that it would then be too close to the election to enjoin their illegal rules. A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 93-94 (2025), recognizes that irreparable harm has occurred when the federal government, as here, has stated that it may argue that courts cannot order relief later when the government takes additional steps. Independently, Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 607 U.S. 71, 80 (2026), precludes imposing standing or ripeness requirements that “channel . . . election disputes” towards election day.

Parts II through IV confirm ripeness exists here by showing that Section 3(b) illegally directs the USPS to exercise rulemaking powers that the Constitution and Congress have withheld from the USPS. Contrary to Applicants, the complete, facial invalidity of Section 3(b) does not turn on any future facts and cannot be avoided by anything the USPS might do. Section 3(b)’s indefensible facial illegality also shows the public interest favors denying a stay.

Second, the amicus brief argues that the Constitution and federal law deny the USPS rulemaking authority over not only absentee voter ballots, but also over any voter list or voting system.

Part II shows that the Constitution and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“NVRA”), the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”), and the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 deny the USPS any rulemaking role concerning any voter list, any voting system, or any absentee balloting restriction.

Part III shows that, in addition, provisions of Title 39 deny the USPS any rulemaking role concerning any voter list or any voting system, much less any power to refuse to deliver absentee ballots. Congress has withheld from the USPS any rulemaking authority to create a new category of nonmailable items. Further, none of providing or administering voter lists, modifying voter systems, or restricting absentee balloting is a postal service or a function of the USPS.

Part IV discusses how constitutional and statutory design, structure, and history confirm that any rulemaking authority here was withheld from the USPS. The Constitution and applicable statutes deliberately render it impossible for any centralized federal authority to have power to manipulate federal election results.

Read the full brief here. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].

# # #