A federal judge in Boston on Wednesday lifted the final injunction blocking the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting, clearing the way for new ballot requirements to take effect less than 10 weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm election.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani came the same day that 23 states, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro filed a new lawsuit challenging the Postal Service’s finalized rule. The states said the USPS policy is part of “a broader effort” by the Trump administration “to rewrite federal election law and usurp the authority of the states and Congress.” The Postal Service had said it would not apply the rule to the 2026 elections unless both injunctions against it were lifted, and with Talwani’s decision, no court order currently prevents USPS from moving forward. The new lawsuits do not themselves block the rule.
Talwani vacated the nationwide preliminary injunction she had issued earlier this month, concluding that Monday’s Supreme Court ruling in a related case required her to reconsider it. Neither ruling upheld the policy. The Supreme Court on Monday had lifted a separate injunction from Talwani that applied to the 23 mainly Democratic-led states plus Washington, D.C., that sued over the order. The justices concluded that Talwani weighed in too early, before USPS issued a finalized plan. “Courts review final rules, not proposed rules,” the court wrote.
What the finalized rule requires
USPS released its final rule on Aug. 21, a 95-page document giving states the concrete policy the Supreme Court said was previously missing. The rule requires election officials to submit each mail voter’s name and address to a new USPS portal, along with unique Intelligent Mail barcodes assigned to the envelopes used to send and return that voter’s ballot. Election officials would also have to submit their outgoing and return ballot-envelope designs to USPS for review. Before accepting outgoing ballot mailings, postal employees would scan the envelopes to confirm their barcodes appear in the federal portal. Mailings that fail the verification process would not be accepted and would be returned to election officials to correct and resubmit.
The states argue the last-minute requirements could prevent eligible voters from receiving ballots because of administrative errors, technical failures, or delays, noting that election officials have already designed and purchased envelopes and are preparing to send ballots for the midterms. The coalition argues in its complaint that the rule exceeds USPS’ statutory authority, violates the Voting Rights Act, and intrudes on states’ constitutional power to administer elections. The states also contend that requiring them to identify mail voters to USPS violates federal privacy protections governing records of individuals’ First Amendment activity.
Voting-rights groups have also amended their existing complaint to challenge the finalized rule, the third legal challenge targeting it. Talwani found that the groups were unlikely to overcome the procedural issue without amending their complaint “to reflect the fact that a Final Rule has now issued,” she wrote in the nine-page order. The groups argue that publication of the rule eliminates the uncertainty identified by the Supreme Court. “USPS has no such authority,” the groups wrote, arguing that the rule gives the agency an “unprecedented gatekeeping role” in mail voting and intrudes on authority belonging to states and Congress.
A political fight over mail voting
About 30% of voters cast ballots by mail in 2024, according to the states challenging the policy. A Pew Research Center survey after the 2024 election found that 44% of Democratic voters said they voted by mail or absentee, compared with 26% of Republican voters. Trump, who himself has voted by mail in Florida, has said he signed the executive order in March to stop illegal voting by non-U.S. citizens, a problem that many studies and audits find is extremely rare. USPS says the rule would improve ballot tracking, assist law enforcement, and reduce the risk of fraud while leaving decisions about voter eligibility to state election officials.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose state is among the plaintiffs, said in a post on X that Trump “does not run elections. States do.” Newsom pledged California would continue challenging the administration’s actions. White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis called Monday’s Supreme Court ruling “a major win for the security of American elections.” The challengers can now ask Talwani to issue new injunctions, and both sides expect the case to return to the Supreme Court.