Postmaster General defends the rule’s legality while deferring to the courts
Postmaster General of the United States
“We have at all times acted within our legal authority to issue a rule to achieve those policies, but ultimately the courts will decide that question, and we will follow the court’s determination. It is that simple.” … “We deliver the mail. Someone else makes the rules. … Once that fight is finished, we’ll do whatever the courts say we can do.”
Source and context
Reporting
About this source
Government Executive reports the Supreme Court’s denial and quotes Postmaster General David Steiner from its own earlier exclusive interview. The interview is the outlet’s own reporting rather than a Postal Service release.
Before the quotation
Steiner leads the agency that issued the rule. The remarks were given to Government Executive before the Supreme Court ruled.
After the quotation
He is quoted saying USPS “is not a political organization.” The statement addresses the agency’s authority and its posture toward the courts rather than the election-timing question the case turns on.
How this statement is classified
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?
EDITORIAL REVIEW SUGGESTED. Relative to implementing and enforcing the rule for the November 2026 election, Steiner combines two positions. He defends the lawfulness of issuing the rule, which supports the conduct under scrutiny. He also declines to press for its application, saying the courts will decide and USPS will comply. The case scope treats support for a later or different postal rule as a separate question, so his defence of the agency’s authority does not by itself amount to backing enforcement this cycle. A reviewer could instead read this as defends_or_excuses, on the basis that defending the rule’s legality is a defence of the conduct.
- 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“Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court ... It is a big loss for Republicans, and America itself.”Read statement
“California stood up for democracy and we won”Read statement
“the consequences would have been catastrophic”Read statement