A federal judge halted the U.S. Postal Service's new mail-in ballot regulation just days before midterm ballots are set to go out, reigniting a legal fight that could land back at the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, based in Boston, issued a 14-day temporary restraining order blocking the USPS from enforcing a recently finalized rule that would have added new federal requirements to the mail-in voting process ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections. The ruling came in two consolidated cases, one brought by the League of Women Voters and allied groups, the other by a coalition of states, and found that the plaintiffs are "likely to succeed on the merits of their claims," NBC News reported.
Talwani, an Obama appointee, concluded that the regulation is most likely unlawful because the president cannot insert the federal government into elections without express authorization from Congress. The ruling lands roughly a week before the first mail ballots are due to be sent out for the midterms, a timeline that election officials across the country said made compliance impossible.
The blocked USPS regulation implemented a key provision of President Trump's executive order on mail-in ballots. That order directed the Postal Service to track mail-in ballots and potentially reject those submitted by voters not on a federal list of eligible citizens. It also directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of eligible voters and send them to states.
The regulation would have required states to redesign mail ballots, seek approval for new designs, order production, update election management systems, train staff on a new USPS portal, and upload citizen data, all before the midterms. Talwani found that states "have neither time nor funds" to meet those demands and that compliance would be "practically impossible."
Nearly one-third of Americans cast their ballots by mail, AP News reported, and election officials warned there was simply not enough time to revise their systems to meet the new Postal Service directives before voters started receiving ballots.
In her ruling, Talwani wrote that the administration had not offered "any evidence regarding fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting." She framed the stakes in blunt terms:
"The USPS's interest in correcting an unsubstantiated problem through likely unconstitutional means is dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement of citizens who need access to mail ballots in order to vote."
Twenty-four states and Washington, D.C., filed lawsuits against the USPS over the new mail-in voting rules, Fox News reported. The breadth of that opposition, spanning red, blue, and purple states, reflected how deeply the regulation cut into territory that state election officials have long controlled.
The ruling caps a dizzying week of legal maneuvering. On Monday, the Supreme Court's conservative majority cleared Trump's mail-in voting order by lifting a separate injunction in a case brought by California and 22 other states. The justices found that Talwani had acted too hastily in her earlier block. But the Court did not weigh in on whether the underlying executive order or the Postal Service regulation is lawful, a distinction that matters enormously.
On Wednesday, Talwani responded by lifting the earlier injunction she had imposed that blocked vital elements of the executive order, a different injunction from the one the Supreme Court addressed. That move appeared to bring her into alignment with the high court's procedural guidance.
Then came Thursday. With the USPS regulation now finalized and enforcement imminent, Talwani issued her new 14-day restraining order, this time targeting the regulation itself rather than the broader executive order. The Washington Examiner reported that the judge found the USPS had effectively defied her preliminary injunction by pushing the final rule through.
The DHS provision, requiring the compilation of eligible voter lists, remains in effect. But the USPS regulation, which would have added an entirely new layer of federal bureaucracy to the process of mailing and receiving ballots, is frozen for now.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who has positioned herself as a leading opponent of the Trump administration's election policies, claimed the ruling as a win. In a statement, James said:
"This rule is a clear attempt by the federal government to interfere in elections it has no power to control. Today, a federal court halted it before this administration could wreak havoc on our elections."
James's framing, that the federal government has "no power to control" state-run elections, echoes Talwani's core legal finding. But the Supreme Court's earlier procedural ruling suggests the justices may see the question differently when the merits finally reach them.
The Trump administration could rush back to the Supreme Court to overturn Talwani's latest order. Just The News reported that a quick appeal is expected, given the narrow window before midterm ballots must go out. With only about a week before the first mail ballots are due, any delay in resolving the legal standoff creates real operational chaos for election administrators.
The broader legal battle over mail-in voting has been building for months. The Supreme Court has previously weighed in on state authority over counting mail-in ballots, and the current dispute adds a new dimension: whether the executive branch can unilaterally impose federal requirements on a process the Constitution assigns to state legislatures.
President Trump has long criticized mail-in voting, arguing it is vulnerable to fraud. Talwani's ruling directly challenged that premise, noting the administration presented no evidence of fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting to justify the regulation. That gap between the policy's stated rationale and its evidentiary foundation is likely to be a central issue if the case reaches the Supreme Court on the merits.
For now, the 14-day restraining order means the USPS regulation sits idle while ballots are printed, mailed, and, in many states, already being filled out. The ongoing disputes over ballot handling in states like California underscore just how volatile the politics of mail-in voting have become.
Election administration belongs to the states. When Washington tries to recreate those rules by executive fiat, without evidence, without Congressional authorization, and without enough lead time for a single county clerk to comply, courts are right to pump the brakes.