A federal judge in Boston has temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing new mail-in voting regulations ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, ruling that the agency likely exceeded its legal authority.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted an emergency 14-day temporary restraining order on August 27, staying major portions of a final rule titled “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections.” Published on August 26, the regulation would have barred election officials from mailing ballots unless they secured advance design approvals from the Postal Service and uploaded voter information—including names, addresses, and tracking barcodes—into a federal online portal.
The lawsuits were brought by two groups: a coalition of 24 states and the governor of Pennsylvania, led by California, and voting rights organizations led by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts. A group of 12 other states, including Missouri, Florida, and Texas, intervened to defend the policy.
The rule originated from President Donald J. Trump’s March 31 executive order focused on election integrity. Just days before Talwani’s ruling, on August 24, the Supreme Court vacated an earlier injunction, noting that “[f]ederal courts review final rules, not proposed rules.” However, the high court added that the outcome did not imply “that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful.”
Once the Postal Service published the completed rule on August 26, the plaintiffs returned to court, arguing the mandates threatened imminent harm. Talwani agreed, observing that the Constitution places election administration in the hands of states and Congress.
“Legislative power, [the Supreme Court] ha[s] held, belongs to the legislative branch, and to no other,” Talwani wrote, finding no evidence that Congress authorized the Postal Service to regulate election procedures. She determined the plaintiffs are likely to prove the rule is unconstitutional.
The government argued the Postal Service acted within its broad authority to run postal operations. Intervenor states contended the measure “merely imposes modest conditions on the sending of mail.”
Attorneys for the postal defendants also claimed the challenge came too late, as “appellate review in the ordinary course would come too late for the 2026 midterms.”
Talwani rejected that argument, pointing to evidence submitted by state election officials showing that complying with the rule’s tight turnaround was physically impossible with the November 3 election just over two months away. Ballots in several jurisdictions have already been printed, and some state laws require mailings to begin in early September. The judge emphasized that the Postal Service rule contained no timeline or deadline for reviewing and returning submitted envelope designs.
Talwani also noted that the administration provided no evidence of fraudulent mail-in voting, meaning the government’s interest was “dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement of citizens who need access to mail ballots in order to vote.” Citing appellate precedent, she added that “there can be no ‘do-over’ or redress of a denial of the right to vote after an election.”
Under the order, postal officials are barred from enforcing mandatory envelope designs, the online portal sign-up, and the voter-data registration system for any elections held on or before November 3, 2026. The judge directed defense counsel to notify the agency and its workers within 24 hours under penalty of contempt. Motions for a longer preliminary injunction remain pending.
READ: Gun Rights Group Takes Fight Over Assault Weapons Bans To Supreme Court
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
