Second Federal Judge Blocks USPS Mail-Ballot Rules Before November Midterms

Two separate injunctions now restrain the same set of postal regulations, creating a split procedural record that the Supreme Court must resolve before mail voting closes in multiple states.

A second federal judge issued an order on September 14, 2026, blocking U.S. Postal Service rules that would have allowed the agency to refuse mail-in ballots that do not meet new processing standards, according to Axios. The ruling adds a second active injunction against the regulations as the Supreme Court separately considers whether to permit the restrictions while litigation continues.

The USPS rules at issue would authorize postal workers to decline delivery of mail ballots that fail to satisfy newly established handling and formatting criteria. The specific criteria and the Federal Register notice under which they were promulgated were not fully detailed in the available source material. The precise docket numbers for both injunctions were not disclosed in the Axios report. What public record would reveal those details is the relevant district court dockets and any emergency applications filed with the Supreme Court.

Mail voting is already underway in at least some states ahead of the November 3, 2026 midterm elections, according to the same Axios report. The timing of the second injunction means election administrators in those states are operating under court orders that prohibit enforcement of the postal rules, at least temporarily.

The Supreme Court is separately weighing a request, presumably from the Trump administration or the USPS, to allow the rules to take effect while the underlying litigation proceeds. That posture, known as a stay pending appeal, would require the Court to conclude that the government is likely to succeed on the merits and that it would suffer irreparable harm without the stay. The specific case name and docket number before the Supreme Court were not provided in the source material.

The Trump administration has pursued changes to mail-ballot handling through the USPS, an independent agency whose board of governors includes presidentially appointed members confirmed by the Senate. The legal basis the administration has cited for the new rules, and the precise regulatory mechanism used, were not specified in the available source material. The relevant rulemaking record at the USPS and any published final rule would contain that information.

Opponents of the rules, whose identities in the second case were not named in the available source material, have argued in at least one proceeding that the regulations impose burdens on voters and election officials that are inconsistent with federal election law. The legal theories underlying both injunctions, and whether the two judges relied on the same statutory or constitutional grounds, are not confirmed by the available reporting.

Mail voting expanded significantly during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles. The share of ballots cast by mail in federal elections has varied widely by state. Some states conduct elections entirely by mail, while others require an excuse for an absentee ballot. Federal courts have repeatedly reviewed state and federal rules governing mail ballot receipt, cure processes, and postmark requirements in litigation spanning both parties.

The Department of Justice and the USPS did not provide on-record responses in the available source material. It is unknown whether the administration intends to seek an emergency stay from the Supreme Court in the second case, or whether the two cases will be consolidated. A filing on the Supreme Court's public docket would reveal any such action.

For additional context on the broader policy conflict between the Trump administration and federal agencies over AI regulation, which shares no procedural connection to this case but illustrates a concurrent pattern of agency-level conflict, see the related TCT report on OpenAI and Anthropic Safety Warnings Put Them at Odds With Trump Administration.

What remains unknown is the precise language of both injunctions, the circuit courts in which the underlying appeals are pending, the identity of plaintiffs in the second case, and the timeline the Supreme Court has set for briefing on the stay application. All of those facts are contained in public court filings accessible through PACER and the Supreme Court's public docket.