A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) violated a nationwide injunction by finalizing regulations tied to President Donald Trump’s mail-ballot executive order, but declined to block the rule’s scheduled publication.
USPS violated injunction but rule remains in effect — U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani found that the USPS completed the rulemaking process despite a preliminary injunction issued Aug. 11 prohibiting such actions. The rule, which requires state and local election officials to use federally prescribed envelopes, unique tracking barcodes, and a USPS portal for voter data, was finalized on Aug. 23 and scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on Aug. 26. However, Talwani did not impose penalties or halt publication, leaving the rule’s status unchanged for now.
Existing injunction continues to block enforcement — The judge’s Aug. 26 ruling maintains the prior injunction, which explicitly prohibits the USPS from enforcing the rule for the November 2024 election or rejecting ballots that do not meet the new standards. The USPS has stated it plans to activate the requirements immediately if the remaining injunction is lifted, though officials argued that finalizing the rule did not violate the court order because they had not yet implemented it.
Rule details and scope — The regulations would require election officials to upload voter names, addresses, and ballot barcodes to a USPS portal before mailing ballots. The USPS would then review outbound mailings and return those that fail to meet envelope, barcode, or data-submission requirements. The agency clarified it would not verify voter eligibility, compare data with voter rolls, or inspect ballots. The rule’s effective date is Aug. 21, though enforcement remains blocked.
Supreme Court action impacts separate litigation — On Aug. 24, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump in a legal challenge brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia, which had sought to block the executive order. The high court’s decision lifted an injunction in that case, though it does not directly affect the USPS rule or the Massachusetts-based lawsuit led by the League of Women Voters.
USPS response and legal arguments — In her ruling, Talwani rejected the USPS’s contention that it had not violated the injunction, stating that the agency’s actions “ignore[d] the court’s explicit directive not to ‘initiat[e] or complet[e]’ rulemaking.” The USPS had argued that delaying the rule’s effective date could prevent implementation ahead of the general election, but the judge found that the completion of the rulemaking process itself constituted a violation regardless of enforcement timing.
The ruling leaves the rule in a state of legal limbo, with its publication proceeding but enforcement still prohibited by the existing injunction.