A federal appeals court has declined to let the U.S. Postal Service enforce new mail-ballot requirements before the Nov. 3 midterm election, leaving a preliminary injunction in place while litigation over the rule continues.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that the Trump administration had not made a strong enough showing that the lower court erred in finding the Postal Service rule likely unlawful, according to the Associated Press and Reuters.
How the case reached the First Circuit
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani first blocked the rule with a 14-day temporary restraining order on Aug. 27, after voting-rights groups and several Democratic-led states sued to stop it. The administration appealed that order to the First Circuit the next day. Rather than let the TRO lapse, Talwani converted it into a preliminary injunction on Sept. 5, extending the block while the underlying case proceeds. The First Circuit’s Sept. 10 order refused to pause that injunction, meaning the Postal Service cannot enforce the challenged requirements for now. The ruling is procedural, not a final judgment on the rule’s legality.
What the rule required
The Postal Service rule implements a March executive order from President Donald Trump. It would require states to supply USPS with lists of people receiving mail ballots and to place unique barcodes on outgoing and returning ballot envelopes. Reuters reported that USPS could refuse to deliver envelopes that didn’t meet the design requirements or that were associated with voters absent from the submitted lists. The Associated Press reported that states would also have to pre-clear envelope designs through the federal government using an online portal that had not yet been activated.
Election officials challenging the rule argued it couldn’t be implemented safely so close to the election and risked preventing valid ballots from being delivered. The Justice Department countered that the requirements were modest mailing standards that would not shift control over voter eligibility from the states to USPS.
The constitutional question
Talwani found the rule likely exceeded federal authority because the Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections, and the First Circuit panel agreed the challengers had shown enough likelihood of success to keep the injunction in place during the appeal. Neither court has made a final determination on the constitutionality of every part of the policy — preliminary-injunction proceedings only assess whether a disputed rule should operate while the merits are litigated.
Why the timing matters
The Associated Press reported that Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin had already begun sending mail ballots by the time of the ruling. All 50 states permit some form of mail voting, per Reuters; 29 allow no-excuse absentee voting and eight conduct elections primarily by mail. A late change to ballot-envelope requirements could disrupt systems already in motion across state election offices, local administrators and the Postal Service.
What’s still pending
The administration separately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, and that request remained pending when the First Circuit issued its order — its third approach to the high court in this litigation, according to the Washington Examiner. An earlier Supreme Court action in related litigation was procedural and did not decide the policy’s constitutionality. For now, the preliminary injunction remains in effect, and USPS may not enforce the challenged ballot-envelope and voter-list requirements.
Sources: Reuters, Associated Press, Democracy Docket, Washington Examiner.
