Second Federal Judge Blocks USPS Mail-Ballot Rule Ahead of Midterms

Verified Baseline

A second court has blocked the rule; the litigation is not over

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols issued a preliminary injunction late Sunday preventing the Trump administration from implementing new U.S. Postal Service requirements for mail ballots, according to independent reports from Reuters and the Associated Press. Nichols, whom President Donald Trump appointed during his first term, concluded that key parts of the regulation exceeded authority Congress gave the Postal Service and could make mail voting harder.

The ruling is separate from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s September 4 injunction in Boston. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to pause Talwani’s order. That request remains pending, but even a Supreme Court decision affecting the Boston case would not automatically erase Nichols’ separate injunction. The administration could appeal Nichols’ ruling and ask an appellate court to pause it.

The immediate status at publication is therefore clear but temporary: the Postal Service rule cannot be implemented under either injunction. No court has canceled mail voting, invalidated already issued ballots or decided the final merits of every challenge.

What the Rule Would Do

States would face new voter-list, barcode and envelope requirements

Reuters reports that the rule would require states to send the Postal Service lists of voters eligible to receive mail ballots and to use unique barcodes on outgoing and return envelopes. The agency could refuse delivery when a voter did not appear on a submitted list or when a state failed to meet the new standards.

The administration argues that states would retain control over voter eligibility and that the regulation need not prevent anyone from voting by mail. Opponents—including Democratic Party organizations, civil-rights groups and states in related cases—argue that the executive branch and Postal Service cannot assume election-administration powers assigned by the Constitution and federal law to states and Congress.

Nichols’ injunction does not establish that any voter has already been denied a ballot under the rule. It prevents implementation while the court evaluates the legal challenge. That distinction separates a confirmed judicial restraint from claims about election results or voter behavior that cannot yet be measured.

Why It Matters Now

Ballot preparation has begun, shrinking the time for rule changes

AP reports that mail ballots are already being distributed in at least three states, with more states preparing to follow. Election officials have said that redesigning envelopes, obtaining Postal Service approval, transmitting voter data and training staff close to Election Day could disrupt established timelines.

All 50 states permit some form of mail voting. Reuters counts 29 states allowing voters to request a mail ballot without giving a reason and eight conducting elections entirely by mail. The practical stakes therefore extend beyond the parties in court, although state procedures vary substantially.

The ruling also illustrates why judicial headlines require precision. “Blocked” describes the present legal effect; it does not mean the policy is permanently defeated. The Supreme Court proceeding concerns a separate injunction, and later appeals could change which order controls. Readers can compare this dispute with the site’s coverage of what was and was not confirmed as the Senate reconvened and the procedural hurdles facing the CLARITY Act.

What Remains Unknown

The next controlling event will come from the courts or USPS guidance

Four developments would change this assessment: a written Supreme Court order addressing the Boston injunction; an appeal and emergency stay request involving Nichols’ order; revised Postal Service guidance telling states what rules currently apply; or a later merits decision determining whether the challenged provisions are lawful.

Until one of those occurs, election officials and voters should rely on their state or local election office for current ballot procedures. This report does not predict how any court will rule or how mail voting will affect the midterm results.