Federal judge again blocks Trump's mail ballot order just before midterms

Federal Judge Issues 14-Day Restraining Order Against USPS Mail Ballot Rule

A federal judge on Thursday issued a 14-day temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of a U.S. Postal Service rule that implements requirements for states submitting mail ballots. U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani’s order halts the rule’s application ahead of the midterm elections, during which states are scheduled to begin sending mail ballots within approximately one week.

The rule stems from an executive order issued by President Donald Trump in March. It directs the Postal Service to accept outbound mail ballots only when states provide recipient information through a designated portal, apply barcodes to envelopes, and meet specified envelope standards. The requirements are intended to allow verification that ballots are directed to individuals listed on federal voter eligibility records. The Postal Service has stated that the rule does not itself determine voter eligibility or cross-check submissions against state voter rolls, leaving those determinations with the states.

Twenty-four states and Washington, D.C., refiled lawsuits after the Supreme Court issued a procedural ruling earlier in the week. That decision found that Judge Talwani had acted prematurely in a prior proceeding but did not address the underlying legality of the executive order or the resulting Postal Service rule. The plaintiffs argue that the president and the Postal Service lack authority to set election procedures, which the Constitution assigns to the states and, in some instances, to Congress. They contend that the new submission and formatting mandates constitute an improper federal intrusion into state election administration.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, representing one of the plaintiff groups, stated that the rule represents an attempt by the federal government to interfere in areas beyond its control. The administration maintains that the procedural standards fall within the Postal Service’s authority to manage mail acceptance and do not alter who is eligible to vote by mail.

Judge Talwani wrote that the plaintiff states lack sufficient time and resources to redesign ballots, obtain necessary approvals, update election management systems, train staff on the portal, and upload required data before ballots must be prepared for the midterms. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Sept. 3. The ruling is expected to be appealed, potentially returning the case to the Supreme Court.

The case affects preparations for November’s elections, in which election officials have indicated that roughly one-third of voters historically cast ballots by mail. Officials in multiple states have cited the short timeframe for implementing the portal uploads, barcode requirements, and envelope changes.

Trump has criticized mail-in voting procedures in prior elections and has linked expanded mail voting to outcomes in the 2020 contest. He has also cast his own ballot by mail as a registered voter in Florida. The first version of the executive order, issued last year, was previously blocked on constitutional grounds after it sought additional documentation for voter registration, including passports, REAL IDs, military identification showing citizenship, or government-issued photo identification paired with proof of citizenship.

In a separate proceeding earlier this year, a federal judge in Washington declined to block the order at that stage, concluding that the challenge was premature before the Postal Service had issued its implementing rule. After the Supreme Court’s recent procedural decision, plaintiffs updated their filings to focus on the published final rule.

A 2025 Brookings Institution report examined mail-in voting fraud cases across general elections from 2016 through 2022 and recorded approximately four instances per 10 million mail ballots cast. The analysis drew in part on a database that its compilers described as incomplete.

The Postal Service has indicated it will not accept ballots from states that fail to meet the portal, barcode, and envelope conditions. States have argued that compliance would require substantial redesign and data-sharing steps not previously required. The administration has countered that the standards provide a mechanism for confirming that ballots reach only those on federal eligibility lists without displacing state authority over voter qualifications.

The litigation continues to move through the courts with the midterms approaching.