Judges Block Trump Mail Ballot Rule as Supreme Court Review Looms

A federal judge in Washington issued a preliminary injunction late Sunday preventing the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing new regulations that would restrict mail balloting, marking the second such order as the Supreme Court prepares to consider a related case from Boston. U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, who was appointed by President Trump, ruled that the plaintiffs had shown a substantial risk that valid absentee and mail-in ballots would go uncounted if the rules took effect before the midterm elections.

The regulations, published August 21, require states to submit ballot envelope designs for Postal Service approval and upload lists of intended recipients into an online system that remains inactive. Election officials across multiple states have said the changes cannot be implemented in time without disrupting the distribution of ballots already underway in at least three states. Nichols wrote that the public interest lies in avoiding that outcome, noting the increased chance that otherwise eligible voters would be disenfranchised.

The decision reverses Nichols’s earlier refusal to intervene in May, when he found the challenge premature. That same timing argument led the Supreme Court last month to lift a separate injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston. With the formal rule now in place, plaintiffs in both courts refiled, prompting the new round of rulings. Talwani was appointed by former President Obama; Nichols by Trump. The administration has appealed Talwani’s order to the Supreme Court.

The regulations originated from an executive order Trump signed earlier this year directing tighter controls on mail voting. Postal workers and state election administrators had warned that the requirements would create logistical chaos this close to a general election. Nichols’s order does not resolve the underlying legal questions about the scope of the executive order or the Postal Service’s authority, but it preserves the status quo for the immediate election cycle.

The litigation highlights recurring tensions over how federal agencies interact with state election procedures and how quickly changes can be imposed without undermining voter access. Courts have repeatedly cited the practical difficulties of altering ballot processes weeks before ballots begin reaching voters. The Supreme Court’s handling of the Boston appeal will likely clarify whether the administration can move forward with similar rules in future cycles or whether procedural and timing constraints will continue to limit such efforts.