Washington — A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing its new requirements for mail voting for the November midterm elections.
The order from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani is the latest development in the legal battle over President Trump’s efforts to tighten the rules for mail voting ahead of the November elections. That fight escalated this week, after the Supreme Court halted a decision in a different case that had blocked the Trump administration from implementing provisions of an executive order that aims to restrict mail voting.
On the heels of that ruling from the nation’s highest court, a group of two dozen states and the District of Columbia filed a new lawsuit Wednesday seeking to block the new rule from the Postal Service, published last week, that regulates mail voting for the upcoming federal elections. A coalition of voting rights groups also challenged the new requirements, which were issued in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order.
The states and voting rights groups argued that Congress has not given the Postal Service the authority to set the rules for federal elections or mail voting. Instead, the Constitution gives states the power to administer elections, the challengers said.
For 14 days, Talwani agreed to halt enforcement of several key provisions of the Postal Service’s rule for the upcoming elections, which will determine which party controls the House and Senate.
“Based on the record presently before the court, Plaintiff States face irreparable harm where they are required to comply with a likely unconstitutional regulation for which compliance is practically impossible as to the 2026 midterm elections, now little more than two months away,” Talwani wrote in her 11-page order. “Most Plaintiff States have already ordered their mail ballots, and some are required by state law to send them to eligible voters as early as next week.”
The states, she continued, “have neither time nor funds to design new mail ballots, seek approval of the new designs, order production of mail ballots, update their own election management systems, train election officials to use the USPS portal, and upload citizen data to the portal, all before the midterms.”
Talwani said Congress did not delegate authority to the Postal Service to regulate election mail. She found that the states are likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments that the agency lacked authority to issue the rule, which the judge said is likely unconstitutional.
“If Plaintiff States are unable to comply with the Final Rule, an outcome that seems unavoidable given the timeframe, they will violate their obligations under the Constitution and State laws to administer elections,” the Boston-based federal judge wrote.
The Justice Department said Friday that it is appealing the decision, and the challenge to the new restrictions for mail voting could land before the Supreme Court.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was among the 24 attorneys general suing, criticized the new regulations in response to Talwani’s order.
“This rule is a clear attempt by the federal government to interfere in elections it has no power to control,” she said in a statement. “Today, a federal court halted it before this administration could wreak havoc on our elections. “
The dispute arose out of an executive order Mr. Trump signed in March that sought to restrict mail voting, which the president frequently claims leads to widespread fraud, though he has not put forth evidence in support of his claims.
The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile “State Citizenship Lists” of confirmed U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote and instructs the attorney general to prioritize investigations and prosecutions against election officials who issue ballots of people ineligible to vote.
But at the center of these lawsuits is the Postal Service’s final rule that establishes design requirements for mail ballot envelopes, including trackable barcodes, and requires state election officials to submit to an online portal lists of intended mail-ballot recipients. The Postal Service will then compile that information into state-specific “Mail-In and Absentee Participation Lists.”
The agency said in the rule that it “will not play any role in determining voter eligibility, maintaining voter rolls, or counting ballots.”
Monday’s Supreme Court ruling involved an earlier lawsuit filed by 23 Democratic-led states that sought to block Mr. Trump’s executive order. While the high court sided with the Trump administration, its decision was procedural, and the high court did not rule on the merits of the mail-in ballot restrictions that Mr. Trump is seeking to impose. Instead, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said the states had brought their lawsuit too early.
The Postal Service rolled out its new requirements with the November midterms quickly approaching, leaving states with little time to implement them. North Carolina will begin sending mail ballots to military and overseas voters Sept. 4, and several other states will start making them available in mid-September.
The states had warned in their lawsuit that as a result of the measure, election officials had to “accomplish multiple Herculean tasks, each necessary to address the disruption caused by the Rule, in a matter of weeks, with limited resources.”
If not blocked, “the Rule will frustrate or outright prevent Plaintiff States from administering their mail voting programs in November and foreseeably disenfranchise voters who vote by mail. Indeed, this seems to be what the President prefers,” state officials said.
But Justice Department lawyers told the court that the rule makes only “modest informational requirements on” states and localities sending federal mail ballots and argued states retain control over the administration of their elections.
“The Rule does not displace a single State election law. And it need not and should not prevent a single voter from voting by mail,” they said.
The Justice Department warned that if the rule were temporarily blocked, and then allowed to take effect before the November midterms, the states and the Postal Service would be even more rushed to implement it.
“[T]his is ultimately a regulation of the U.S. mail, and a modest one at that — not a federal takeover of election administration by the Postal Service,” government lawyers wrote.
