<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A federal judge stated on August 25, 2026, that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) violated a nationwide injunction by issuing President Donald Trump’s mail-ballot rule for the November election. However, she declined to impose additional relief that would prevent its scheduled publication. This ruling followed a Supreme Court decision that found states had sued prematurely regarding Trump’s mail-ballot executive order and lifted an injunction in a separate lawsuit.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani determined that the Postal Service did not comply with her August 11 preliminary injunction when it issued the final rule on August 21 and submitted it to the Federal Register with an immediate effective date. “Defendants cannot contend that they misunderstood the scope of the court’s order,” Talwani, appointed by former President Barack Obama, stated in her five-page ruling. “Accordingly, despite the Defendants’ protestations that ‘[t]he United States takes its obligation to comply with court orders very seriously,’ the court finds that Defendants violated the preliminary injunction in this case.”</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Despite her findings, Talwani rejected additional remedies requested by the plaintiffs, the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, allowing the rule to proceed for publication. The existing injunction continues to prevent USPS from enforcing the requirements for the November 3 election or rejecting ballot mail that does not meet the administration’s standards.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The rule would change mail-in voting requirements significantly. States would need to provide USPS with lists of voters who received mail ballots, and outgoing and return ballot envelopes would require unique barcodes. USPS would verify whether envelopes met the rule’s standards but would not assess voter eligibility, according to the administration.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The administration contended that publishing the rule did not breach the injunction, asserting that USPS would not implement it for elections held on or before November 3 unless the government receives relief from the court orders. It also indicated that an immediate effective date would allow states time to comply if the injunction is lifted before the midterm elections.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Talwani did not rule on whether to vacate the injunction, as requested by the administration following the Supreme Court's pause on a separate order in a lawsuit initiated by 23 Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Supreme Court found that the states had challenged the policy prematurely because the Postal Service had not finalized the rulemaking process, while noting that states could contest a final rule if it caused them harm.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This Supreme Court decision did not impact Talwani’s injunction in the League of Women Voters case. She indicated that USPS’s final rule “may ultimately inure to Plaintiffs’ benefit” by enabling them to challenge a completed regulation rather than a hypothetical proposal.</p>