Alito would grant the government’s stay request
Supreme Court associate justice, dissenting
“I would grant the Government’s application”
Read the original text (opens in a new tab)Supreme Court stay denial, Kavanaugh concurrence and Alito dissent: USPS v. California · Supreme Court of the United StatesPDF p.1: concurrence; pp.2–9: dissent and Thomas’s express joinder
Source and context
Original text
Supreme Court stay denial, Kavanaugh concurrence and Alito dissent: USPS v. California (opens in a new tab) · Supreme Court of the United StatesPDF p.1: concurrence; pp.2–9: dissent and Thomas’s express joinder
About this source
The Court denies a stay of the preliminary injunction. Kavanaugh objects to applying the rule in 2026; Alito would grant the stay and Thomas joins him. This is emergency relief, not final disposition of every challenge to the executive order.
Before the quotation
The government seeks a stay of the November injunction.
After the quotation
His dissent argues the government has a strong case under postal statutes.
How this statement is classified
Defended or excused
Case context: Should Trump’s new mail-in voting restrictions apply to the 2026 midterms?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
Defends 2026 enforcement by supporting a stay.
- Recorded on
- Published here
Should Trump’s new mail-in voting restrictions apply to the 2026 midterms?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“California stood up for democracy and we won”Read statement
“the consequences would have been catastrophic”Read statement
“Now, let the people vote!”Read statement