President Donald Trump’s emergency appeal aimed at limiting the use of mail ballots is poised to test a controversial, 20-year-old Supreme Court principle that was intended to avoid chaos before elections.
The “Purcell principle,” rooted in a 2006 Supreme Court decision, warns federal courts against making last-minute changes to voting rules. But the principle has never before been weighed in a Supreme Court case involving a federal election policy like Trump’s effort to give the US Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security a hand in screening state voter rolls for potential non-citizen voters.
How the 6-3 conservative majority deals with its self-created and oft-criticized rule in the Trump case could have practical implications for how the court handles the flood of litigation that will inevitably crash onto its docket this fall, and ahead of the 2028 presidential election.
“Here we have potential federal agency action that could impact the way the 2026 election is run,” said Chad Ennis, the vice president of the Honest Elections Project, a conservative group focused on voting policies. “I think this is a novel set of facts and how SCOTUS would apply Purcell, if at all, is an open question.”
