WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 (Nationwide Times) — A federal judge has temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing new mail-ballot requirements tied to President Donald Trump’s executive order, reopening a legal fight that could return to the Supreme Court before the midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a 14-day temporary restraining order on Aug. 27. The order reestablishes a nationwide block on the Postal Service’s implementation of the rules while the court considers whether to issue a longer-lasting injunction. Talwani scheduled a hearing for Sept. 3.
The case is one of several challenges brought by Democratic-led states, voting-rights organizations and the Democratic Party. A separate case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has also challenged the administration’s plan.
What would the Postal Service rules require?
The Postal Service’s final rule, issued Aug. 21, would require states to provide lists of voters eligible to receive mail ballots. It also would require states to use a specific envelope format that had been reviewed and assigned a unique barcode.
The requirements stem from Trump’s March executive order, which sought to create a federal voter list and give the Postal Service a role in election-related procedures. Election administration is largely handled by states, and the lawsuits argue that the administration cannot impose the requirements through the order and Postal Service rule.
The latest restraining order does not decide whether Trump’s executive order or the Postal Service rule is lawful. It temporarily prevents the Postal Service from putting the requirements into effect while the court reviews the challengers’ claims.
Why did Talwani issue another order?
Talwani had previously issued nationwide orders blocking the Postal Service from implementing the plan. The Supreme Court later issued a procedural order affecting one of those injunctions. The justices did not rule on whether Trump’s executive order violated the law.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order said that its action did not mean that measures taken by the government to implement Trump’s order would necessarily be lawful. “On that score, time will tell,” the court wrote.
After the Supreme Court’s action, Talwani lifted an earlier nationwide preliminary injunction, finding that the high court’s procedural ruling required reconsideration. The Postal Service’s issuance of its final rule then restarted the legal challenge, leading to the latest temporary restraining order.
Talwani wrote that states would face a short deadline to change their election systems if the requirements took effect. “Plaintiff states have neither time nor funds to design new mail ballots, seek approval of the new designs, order production of mail ballots, update their own election management systems, train election officials to use the USPS portal and upload citizen data to the portal, all before the midterms,” she wrote.
What happens next?
The Sept. 3 hearing will focus on whether the temporary order should be replaced with a longer-lasting injunction. An injunction is a court order that can remain in place during further litigation or until a case is resolved, while a temporary restraining order generally provides short-term relief.
The administration and the challengers may ask federal appeals courts to review Talwani’s decision. The dispute could again reach the Supreme Court, although the materials in the litigation do not show whether the administration has made a final decision to appeal the latest order.
The case is unfolding alongside other federal litigation. On July 1, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington, D.C., issued a nationwide order blocking the Postal Service from implementing the plan and cited a 2020 settlement involving the agency. In June, Talwani issued an injunction covering 23 mostly Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C., before issuing the later nationwide orders.
For now, the latest order prevents the Postal Service from enforcing the final rule for 14 days. The broader legal questions — including the limits of presidential authority over election administration and the Postal Service’s role in mail voting — remain unresolved.
