Two federal judges have now blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing new mail-ballot requirements before the November midterm elections, after U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols issued a preliminary injunction late Sunday. Nichols concluded that allowing the rules to take effect would increase the risk that otherwise valid absentee or mail ballots would not be counted, according to the AP. His order adds a second barrier to a plan that would give the Postal Service a new role in screening election mail.

The ruling arrived while ballots were already being distributed in Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin, and as additional states prepared to begin mailing them. It also came with the Supreme Court considering the administration’s request to lift a separate injunction entered by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts. The immediate question is therefore operational as well as constitutional: whether a federal agency can impose new national standards after state and local election officials have begun executing legally fixed calendars.

The administration describes the changes as mail-processing and data-reporting safeguards intended to improve visibility, accountability and public confidence. State officials, voting groups and postal employees counter that the system was built too late, exceeds presidential and postal authority, and could cause compliant ballots to be rejected because of administrative or technical mismatches. The competing claims are now converging at the Supreme Court with fewer than two months remaining before Election Day.

What the Postal Rule Would Change

The Postal Service’s 95-page final rule, released for public inspection on August 21, creates nationwide preparation and reporting standards for ballot mail in federal elections. Election offices would have to use approved envelope designs and unique Intelligent Mail barcodes for outbound and return ballot envelopes. They also would have to register portal users and submit each mail voter’s name, address and associated barcodes through a federal system.

Under the rule, an individual would be enrolled on a state-specific Mail-In and Absentee Participation List when the required information was entered. The Postal Service would review outbound ballot mailings before accepting them, assessing both envelope compliance and whether recipients appeared on the participation list. The agency says the system would create reconcilable records and improve automation, while maintaining that many objections rested on misunderstandings about how the rules would operate.

The rule implements President Donald Trump’s March 31 executive order, which directed the government to assemble state citizenship lists and instructed the Postal Service to propose standards for mail ballots. It also called for federal investigations of officials or private entities involved in providing ballots to people not legally eligible to vote. The order framed those measures as necessary to enforce federal law and strengthen confidence in election outcomes.

Two Courts Reached the Same Immediate Result

Nichols, a Trump appointee, had declined in May to block the executive order because the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were not yet concrete. That changed when the Postal Service issued a final rule specifying how it intended to act. His Sunday decision did not resolve the lawsuit permanently; a preliminary injunction instead preserves the existing system while the court considers whether the challengers are likely to prevail and whether implementation would cause irreparable harm.

Talwani reached a similar conclusion in litigation brought by states and voting-rights organizations. The Boston-based First Circuit subsequently left her injunction in place, finding that the administration had not justified emergency relief. In reporting on that ruling, Reuters said the court emphasized that the Constitution assigns election regulation principally to states and Congress rather than the president.

An earlier official court order described the executive action as having nationwide effects on how state and local officials administer federal elections. It noted that the administration conceded a federal citizenship list would necessarily be incomplete because of limits in federal records. That does not establish that the Postal Service’s later portal would fail, but it explains why courts have treated list accuracy and timing as more than abstract concerns.

The Supreme Court Faces a Moving Target

The Supreme Court previously lifted an earlier temporary freeze, reasoning that the dispute was premature before the Postal Service completed its rule. The justices expressly left open whether later implementation measures would be lawful. The final rule, the Massachusetts injunction and Nichols’ new decision have now supplied the concrete agency action that was missing from the earlier stage of litigation.

The pending application asks the justices to intervene on an emergency timetable rather than after a full trial and ordinary appellate review. That procedural posture matters. A decision to stay an injunction would allow the rule to operate while litigation continues; it would not necessarily decide the ultimate legality of the executive order or the Postal Service’s authority. Conversely, leaving the injunctions intact would preserve existing state practices for this election without finally resolving what federal standards might be permissible in a later cycle.

The constitutional baseline is shared but its boundaries are disputed. The Elections Clause directs state legislatures to prescribe the times, places and manner of congressional elections while allowing Congress to alter those rules. The administration argues that the Postal Service can regulate the mail under existing statutes and that the president may direct faithful execution of federal law. Challengers argue those authorities do not permit the executive branch to make state ballot eligibility and election administration contingent on a federal postal system.

Election Calendars Leave Little Margin

The practical risk grows as voting begins. The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that 20 states start sending domestic mail ballots at least 45 days before an election, while military and overseas ballots are generally sent 45 days beforehand. Ten states begin even earlier. Once envelopes are printed, barcodes assigned and voter files transferred to vendors, late changes can require new procurement, testing, instructions and staff training.

Mail voting is not a marginal process confined to a few jurisdictions. Twenty-nine states allow any voter to request a mail ballot without providing an excuse, according to NCSL, and eight states conduct elections primarily by mail. The Election Assistance Commission reported that more than 158 million ballots were counted in 2024 and slightly under 28% were cast outside an in-person voting location, based on its national survey.

A federal whistleblower alleged that the portal was developed on an accelerated schedule and was vulnerable to errors that could affect large numbers of voters. The Postal Service responded that the portal was designed to give election officials a secure way to provide lists and that it was continuing development consistent with court orders. Independent reporting also found that agency officials had raised internal concerns about delays and rejected mail, though those concerns are allegations about implementation rather than proof that specific ballots would be lost.

Security Benefits and Administrative Risks

Supporters of the rule say standardized envelopes and unique barcodes could make ballot mail easier to identify, automate and trace. A coalition of Republican-led states told the Postal Service that reconciled data could strengthen the chain of custody and public confidence. The agency’s own guidance says the requirements build on existing mail technology and are intended to improve both processing and enforcement of federal law.

Those benefits are plausible as system-design goals, but the litigation turns partly on whether they can be delivered without rejecting lawful votes. Postal workers have not traditionally decided voter eligibility, and their union has objected to placing that function in the mail stream. The union president told the AP that postal employees should transport election mail rather than verify who may vote. A mismatch could reflect an ineligible voter, but it also could arise from a recent registration, address change, data-entry error or delayed portal update.

The second injunction leaves the established mail-ballot system in place for now, but it does not end the dispute. The Supreme Court’s response to the Massachusetts case could determine whether election offices must pivot during active ballot distribution, and further appeals from Nichols’ ruling remain possible. What has been established is narrow but consequential: two judges examining the completed rule found the risk of uncounted lawful ballots serious enough to justify temporary relief. What remains unresolved is whether the federal government has the authority and operational capacity to impose the system at all, and whether any version could be deployed safely on a less compressed timetable.