Second judge blocks Trump mail-ballot rules as Supreme Court weighs in
A second federal judge has halted new Postal Service mail-ballot requirements before the 2026 midterms, leaving the Supreme Court to weigh an emergency appeal as voting gets underway.
Second federal judge freezes Trump mail ballot order
Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions
Nothing changes yet with the Supreme Court's order on mail voting
Postal Service appeals order blocking plan for Trump's push to restrict mail voting
2026 Primary Election Calendar
A late injunction resets the immediate stakes
U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols late Sunday barred the Postal Service from enforcing new mail-voting requirements before the November midterms, finding that the rules increased the risk that valid ballots would go uncounted.apnews The Washington order is the second active federal injunction against the plan, while the Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to clear a separate Boston ruling.npr Nichols, a Trump appointee, had rejected an earlier challenge in May as premature but reconsidered after the Postal Service issued a final rule on August 21.apnews
The injunction preserves existing mail-ballot procedures for now. Voting by mail remains available to eligible voters under their states’ rules, and the Postal Service is expected to deliver those ballots as usual while key parts of its plan remain blocked.npr
New requirements collide with voting already underway
The Postal Service rule would require election offices to obtain approval for ballot-envelope designs, add specified barcodes and upload voters’ names and addresses through a federal portal. The agency said it would not deliver ballots for jurisdictions that failed to comply.npr +1 Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin had already begun sending at least some ballots, with more states preparing to follow, when Nichols acted.apnews
Election officials say the compressed timetable makes implementation impractical. A whistleblower disclosure released by Sen. Richard Blumenthal alleged that the portal was built on a three-month schedule, lacked full testing and could reject an entire batch after a single scanning error.pbs The Postal Service did not comment on those allegations in the cited report; the White House has described the changes as election-integrity safeguards needed to deter illegal voting.pbs
The Supreme Court faces a different legal question
The justices’ August intervention did not decide whether the president or Postal Service has authority to impose the restrictions. It paused an earlier injunction because the states’ lawsuit had arrived before a final postal rule existed, leaving them free to challenge a concrete rule later.scotusblog The new lawsuits test that opening directly, arguing that election administration belongs primarily to states and Congress rather than the executive branch.
The administration is seeking emergency relief as Election Day approaches. One possible backdrop is the Purcell principle, under which federal courts generally avoid changing state election rules close to voting, though legal scholars note that the Supreme Court has not previously applied it to shield a federal election rule.democracydocket For voters and administrators, the practical result is narrower: the restrictions remain frozen unless an appeals court or the Supreme Court intervenes, but the rules governing mailed ballots are still unsettled less than two months before the election.npr +1