WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 (Nationwide Times) — A federal judge has temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service from putting new mail-ballot requirements into effect, creating another legal hurdle for President Donald Trump’s plan before the 2026 midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a 14-day temporary restraining order on Aug. 27. The order applies nationwide and prevents the Postal Service from carrying out parts of Trump’s executive order on mail voting while the case continues.
Talwani scheduled a hearing for Sept. 3 on whether to issue a longer-lasting injunction. An injunction is a court order that can stop a government agency from taking certain actions while a lawsuit is decided.
What would the Postal Service have to do?
The Postal Service’s final rule, issued Aug. 21, would require states to provide lists of voters who are eligible to receive mail ballots. It also would require states to use a specific envelope format that would be reviewed and include a unique barcode.
The requirements stem from an executive order Trump issued in March. The order sought to create a federal voter list and expand the Postal Service’s role in election procedures.
Talwani wrote that states did not have enough time or money to make the changes before the midterms. She said states would have to redesign ballots, obtain approval for the new designs, produce the ballots, update election systems, train election officials and upload voter information to a Postal Service system.
The temporary order does not decide whether Trump’s executive order is lawful. It pauses implementation while the court considers the challengers’ case.
Why has the policy been blocked before?
The mail-voting plan has produced several lawsuits and court orders.
In May, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia declined to block the executive order immediately. He concluded that such action was premature because the Postal Service had not yet issued its rule.
In June, Talwani issued an injunction covering 23 mostly Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C. On July 1, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, also in the District of Columbia, issued a nationwide order blocking the Postal Service from carrying out the plan. Sullivan said the proposal conflicted with a 2020 settlement involving the agency.
Talwani later issued a nationwide injunction. After a Supreme Court procedural ruling in August, she lifted that earlier injunction and reconsidered the case after the Postal Service released its final rule. Her latest temporary restraining order followed that new rule and a renewed legal challenge.
The lawsuits include challenges by Democratic-led states, voting-rights groups and the Democratic Party. A separate Democratic Party case is pending in federal court in Washington, D.C.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order affected Talwani’s earlier injunction but did not decide whether Trump’s executive order violates the law.
The justices wrote that their decision did not mean that any government action taken to carry out the executive order would necessarily be lawful. The court added that the legality of those actions would be decided later.
That distinction is important: The Supreme Court’s action changed the status of an earlier court order, but it did not approve the Postal Service’s new requirements or settle the broader legal dispute.
What happens next?
Talwani’s Sept. 3 hearing could lead to a longer injunction, a narrower order or a decision allowing the Postal Service to proceed. The administration or the challengers could appeal, and the dispute could return to the Supreme Court.
The case is being considered on a tight schedule because the new requirements concern election administration and mail ballots for the midterms. The court record described by Talwani indicates that states would face significant work if the requirements were enforced close to the election.
For now, Talwani’s 14-day order keeps the Postal Service from implementing the challenged requirements nationwide. It is a temporary step, not a final ruling on the legality of Trump’s mail-voting policy.
