Two Federal Judges Block USPS Mail-Ballot Rule With 50 Days to Midterms

With the Supreme Court now the administration's only procedural option and ballots already in transit, the legal timeline for implementing new federal mail-voting restrictions before November is...

A second federal judge blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing its new "Ballot Mail for Federal Elections" rule late Sunday, September 13, leaving the Trump administration without an active lower-court avenue to implement the policy before the November 2026 midterm elections, according to reporting by the Washington Examiner.

Approximately 50 days remain before Election Day. Election administrators in multiple states have already begun processing and mailing ballots under existing procedures, a logistical reality that federal courts have weighed when assessing the practicability of a late-stage rule change.

The USPS rule at issue, designated "Ballot Mail for Federal Elections," was promulgated under a Trump administration executive order directing the Postal Service to impose new handling and eligibility requirements on mail-in ballots in federal contests. The specific text of the executive order and the USPS rulemaking notice are public records available through the Federal Register and the White House Office of the Press Secretary.

The first injunction against the rule was issued by a federal district court prior to Sunday. The second, issued Sunday evening, extended the legal blockade and eliminated the administration's ability to proceed under existing lower-court authority. The Washington Examiner report did not name the second judge or identify the district in which the second order was filed. The court docket, once publicly identified, would provide the judge's name, the case number, and the precise legal basis for the injunction.

With two injunctions in place, the administration's remaining procedural option is to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court, a mechanism that requires a showing of irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits. The Supreme Court has not yet acted on any such application as of the publication of this article.

The constitutional and statutory questions underlying the dispute center on the scope of federal executive authority over election administration, an area where the Constitution assigns primary authority to state legislatures under Article I, Section 4, and to Congress by statute. Opponents of the USPS rule have argued it conflicts with the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act, both of which govern federal election procedures. Supporters argue the executive branch has authority to set postal handling standards that affect ballot integrity.

Mail-in voting has expanded significantly since 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic prompted many states to broaden absentee and vote-by-mail eligibility. According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's 2022 Election Administration and Voting Survey, approximately 33 percent of ballots cast in the 2022 midterms were submitted by mail. The 2026 figure is not yet available.

The procedural posture of this litigation is consistent with prior election-law emergency applications. In October 2020, the Supreme Court resolved several emergency applications involving mail ballot deadlines in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and other states within days of the election, in some cases without issuing written opinions. How the current Court would respond to an emergency application on this rule is unknown.

Both Republican and Democratic state attorneys general have filed or joined litigation over federal election-related executive actions in 2025 and 2026. Which states' attorneys general filed or supported challenges to the USPS ballot mail rule specifically is not confirmed in the available source material. The relevant court dockets would identify all parties.

This newspaper covered the first injunction against the USPS ballot mail rule in Second Federal Judge Blocks USPS Mail-Ballot Rules Before November Midterms.

What remains unknown: the identity of the second judge, the specific district court that issued Sunday's order, the precise statutory grounds cited in each injunction, and whether the Justice Department has filed or intends to file an emergency application with the Supreme Court. The relevant court dockets, available through PACER, would answer each of those questions.