BOSTON — The Trump administration has asked a federal appeals court to restore new U.S. Postal Service requirements for mail-in ballots, escalating a fast-moving legal battle over voting rules just days before the first ballots are scheduled to be sent to voters for the November congressional elections.
The Justice Department asked the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday to halt a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani. Her order currently prevents the Postal Service from enforcing a rule that would require states to provide lists of mail-ballot recipients and use unique barcodes on outbound and return ballot envelopes.
Under the Postal Service rule, ballots that do not meet the new standards, or that are linked to voters not included on state-provided lists, could be refused for delivery. The administration says the changes modernize the Postal Service’s handling of election mail. Opponents, including Democratic-led states and voting-rights groups, say the rule threatens to disrupt election administration and prevent eligible voters from casting ballots.
The dispute has become one of the most consequential election-law cases of the 2026 midterm cycle. It concerns not only how mail ballots are handled but also whether a president and federal agencies can impose new requirements on an election system that is largely administered by state and local governments.
The timing is especially significant. North Carolina is set to become the first state to mail ballots for the November election on Friday, meaning election officials, courts and voters may soon confront uncertainty over which rules will apply.
The rule at the center of the case
The Postal Service finalized the new mail-voting rule in late August as part of an effort to implement President Donald Trump’s March executive order addressing election administration.
The rule requires states to submit to the Postal Service lists identifying voters who are entitled to receive mail ballots. It also requires unique barcodes on both outgoing ballot envelopes and return envelopes. Under the policy, the Postal Service could refuse to deliver ballots if they do not meet those requirements or are associated with voters whose names do not appear on the state lists.
The administration has argued that the policy would improve the security and reliability of election mail.
Justice Department lawyers told the 1st Circuit that Talwani’s order was “gravely mistaken” and based on what they described as an unfounded belief that the Postal Service was trying to take control of federal-election administration from the states. The government said the rule represents lawful improvements and modernization of Postal Service infrastructure used for “this particularly sensitive category of mail.”
The legal challenge argues the opposite. Democratic attorneys general, voting-rights groups and election officials say the Postal Service is imposing requirements that states may not have time or resources to meet before the election.
States would need to provide voter information through a new federal portal, revise ballot-envelope designs, obtain Postal Service approval, potentially acquire new equipment and train election workers under a compressed timeline. The challengers say those changes could cause ballots to be delayed, rejected or never delivered.
The dispute is therefore not merely technical. In an election in which millions of Americans may vote by mail, the rule could affect whether ballots reach voters and whether completed ballots make it back to election offices in time to be counted.
The judge’s temporary block
Talwani, a Boston-based federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued the temporary restraining order on Aug. 27 after Democratic-led states and voting-rights organizations renewed their legal challenge.
She concluded that the rule risked preventing eligible citizens from voting by mail unless states obtained Postal Service approval for ballot envelopes and uploaded information for individual voters to an electronic portal operated by the agency.
“The overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement of citizens who need access to mail ballots in order to vote” outweighed the Postal Service’s interest in correcting what she described as an unsubstantiated problem, Talwani wrote.
The judge said the Postal Service had presented no evidence of mail-in voter fraud that would justify the rule. She also found that the policy was likely unlawful and likely violated the constitutional structure that gives states primary responsibility for administering elections.
Talwani’s order is temporary. It is set to remain in effect for 14 days while she considers whether to issue a longer-lasting preliminary injunction. A hearing is scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 3.
On Monday, Talwani declined the administration’s request to pause her order while it appealed. That decision prompted the Justice Department to seek emergency intervention from the 1st Circuit.
If the appeals court refuses to lift the block, the administration could ask the Supreme Court to step in again.
The Supreme Court’s earlier intervention
The Supreme Court has already weighed in on a related challenge to Trump’s executive order, though it has not decided the underlying legality of the administration’s mail-voting policy.
On Aug. 24, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority lifted an earlier injunction that Talwani had issued in a lawsuit brought by 23 mostly Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia. The justices held that the states had moved too soon because the executive order, by itself, had not yet caused a concrete injury sufficient for the challenge to proceed at that stage.
The court’s decision did not resolve whether Trump has the authority to direct federal agencies to change the way mail ballots are administered. It also did not lift a separate injunction involving the Postal Service’s proposed implementation of the policy.
That distinction became central after the Postal Service released a finalized rule. Once a concrete policy existed, with requirements for voter lists and barcoded envelopes, states and voting-rights groups returned to court, arguing that the legal threat was no longer speculative.
The Supreme Court explicitly left open the possibility that states could renew their legal challenges as the election approached.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, dissented from the majority’s earlier ruling. She wrote that the decision did not address whether the president’s attempts to interfere with state administration of the November elections were lawful. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also wrote separately in dissent.
The court’s earlier decision therefore gave the administration a procedural victory but did not settle the constitutional question now facing the lower courts.
State authority and federal power
At the heart of the litigation is a long-running constitutional issue: who has authority to set the rules for federal elections?
The Constitution gives state legislatures a central role in prescribing the “times, places and manner” of holding elections for senators and representatives, while Congress has authority to alter those regulations. States also play a fundamental role in determining voter eligibility and managing the practical mechanics of elections.
Trump’s March executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit state-specific lists of U.S. citizens eligible to vote. It also instructed the Justice Department to prioritize investigations and prosecutions of state and local election officials who issue ballots to people deemed ineligible for federal elections.
The order further required the Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters included on a state’s approved mail-ballot list.
Talwani previously ruled that Trump lacked the authority to dictate changes in state election administration. She noted that federal agencies might also lack the ability to compile accurate citizenship lists for every state.
The Trump administration rejects the characterization of the policy as a federal takeover of elections. In its appeal, the Justice Department argues that the Postal Service is acting within its own authority to set standards for processing election mail.
The outcome may establish an important precedent. If courts uphold the rule, federal agencies could gain a more active role in setting operational conditions for mail-ballot delivery. If courts strike it down, the ruling could reinforce the principle that states control the design and administration of their election systems, absent a clear act of Congress.
Why the timing matters
The litigation is unfolding with little time for election officials to adjust.
All 50 states offer some form of mail-in voting. Twenty-nine states allow voters to request mail ballots without providing a reason, while eight conduct elections entirely by mail, according to Reuters.
During the 2024 election, the Postal Service said it processed nearly 100 million ballots. About 30% of voters nationwide cast ballots by mail, according to the states challenging the rule.
Those figures underscore why even modest changes to ballot handling can have widespread consequences.
Election officials argue that last-minute changes could cause confusion among voters and create administrative errors. A state that has already printed ballot envelopes may need to redesign them to include required barcodes. Local election offices would need to upload voter lists, coordinate with Postal Service systems and explain new procedures to voters.
The administration, however, says the rule is intended to improve confidence in ballot delivery and election integrity. Trump has repeatedly called for tougher voting-by-mail rules and has promoted false claims that his 2020 loss to former President Joe Biden resulted from widespread voter fraud.
There is no evidence that widespread fraud altered the result of the 2020 election. Still, Trump’s assertions have shaped Republican efforts to impose new voting restrictions at federal and state levels.
Critics contend that new barriers to mail voting could disproportionately affect older voters, people with disabilities, military personnel, rural voters, students, people who travel for work and those who cannot easily reach in-person polling places.
Democratic voters have historically been more likely than Republican voters to use mail ballots, according to Reuters. That dynamic has heightened the political stakes of the litigation as Republicans seek to retain control of Congress in November.
The next legal steps
The 1st Circuit could rule quickly on the administration’s emergency request, given the approaching ballot deadlines. Its decision may determine whether the Postal Service can begin enforcing the rule before Talwani holds her Sept. 3 hearing on a longer injunction.
If the appeals court leaves Talwani’s order intact, the Justice Department may seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. The administration could argue that the lower court improperly restricted the Postal Service’s authority and that the injunction interferes with federal operations.
The challengers are expected to argue that the rule would cause immediate and irreparable harm by forcing states to alter voting procedures at the last minute. They will also contend that an election cannot be easily rerun or repaired if eligible voters are denied ballots or face confusion during the voting process.
For now, the Postal Service rule remains blocked by Talwani’s temporary restraining order.
But the legal status could change rapidly.
What voters should know
The case does not eliminate mail voting. Every state continues to offer some form of voting by mail, and the temporary court order currently prevents the Postal Service from enforcing the new federal requirements.
Voters should rely on instructions from their state or local election office, not on social-media posts or unofficial claims about whether mail ballots remain available. Election rules, application deadlines, ballot-tracking systems and return options vary substantially by state.
People planning to vote by mail should request ballots early where required, carefully follow instructions for signing and sealing return envelopes, and use official ballot-tracking tools if their jurisdiction provides them. Voters with concerns should contact their county or local election authority directly.
The case has become a test of election administration under deadline pressure. In a few days, North Carolina is expected to begin mailing ballots. In the weeks after that, other states will follow.
Whether the Trump administration can impose its new Postal Service requirements before those ballots arrive will depend on courts moving at the same speed as the election calendar.