A federal appeals court on Thursday declined to let the U.S. Postal Service enforce new mail-ballot requirements before the November 3 midterm election, leaving a preliminary injunction in place while the dispute continues.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said the administration had not made a strong showing that the lower court erred in finding the Postal Service rule likely unlawful, according to the Associated Press and Reuters.
WordPress categories: Crime & Courts; U.S.
The rule remains blocked
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued the preliminary injunction last week at the request of voting-rights groups and several Democratic-led states. The First Circuit’s September 10 order refused to pause that injunction.
The decision is procedural but consequential: the Postal Service cannot enforce the challenged requirements while the injunction remains effective. It is not a final judgment resolving every constitutional or statutory claim.
What the Postal Service rule required
The rule was developed to implement a March executive order issued by President Donald Trump. It would require states to provide the Postal Service with lists of people receiving mail ballots and place unique barcodes on outgoing and returning ballot envelopes.
Reuters reported that USPS could refuse to deliver envelopes that did not meet the design requirements or were associated with voters absent from the submitted lists. AP reported that states would also have to pre-clear envelope designs through the federal government and use an online portal that had not yet been activated.
Election officials challenging the rule said the requirements could not be implemented safely so close to the election and could prevent valid ballots from being delivered. The Justice Department argued that the requirements were modest mailing standards and would not transfer control over voter eligibility from states to USPS.
The constitutional dispute
Talwani found that the rule likely exceeded federal authority because the Constitution gives states primary responsibility for administering elections. The First Circuit panel agreed that the challengers had shown enough likelihood of success to leave the injunction in place during the appeal.
The panel did not make a final determination that every part of the administration’s policy is unconstitutional. Preliminary-injunction proceedings assess whether disputed rules should operate while courts consider the merits.
Ballot deadlines increase the stakes
AP reported that Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin had begun sending mail ballots. All 50 states permit some form of mail voting, Reuters reported; 29 allow no-excuse absentee voting and eight conduct elections primarily by mail.
The timing matters because printing, addressing and routing ballot envelopes requires coordination among state election offices, local administrators and the Postal Service. A late change could affect systems already in use.
Supreme Court request remains pending
The administration separately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Reuters reported that the request remained pending when the First Circuit issued its order.
An earlier Supreme Court action in related litigation was procedural and did not decide the policy’s constitutionality, AP reported. The justices’ response to the current request could change the rule’s status before Election Day.
What remains unresolved
The courts have not issued a final merits judgment on the Postal Service rule or the executive order. The Supreme Court could act on the emergency application, and the First Circuit appeal can continue after the stay decision.
For now, the established result is that the preliminary injunction remains effective and USPS may not enforce the challenged ballot-envelope and voter-list requirements.
Sources: Reuters and Associated Press, September 10, 2026.
