The U.S.
Legal Battle Over Mail Ballot Rules Intensifies
A federal judge in Boston has temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing new rules that require states to submit voter lists and use specific ballot envelope formats, citing constitutional concerns.
The Postal Service’s rule, finalized on August 21, 2026, would require states to provide lists of mail voters to the agency and use envelopes with specific barcodes to track ballots. States argued this would force last-minute redesigns of ballot materials, costing millions and risking delays ahead of the November 3, 2026, midterms. “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,” Talwani wrote in her ruling.
Supreme Court Reverses Lower Court Order, Paves Way for Legal Uncertainty
The U.S. However, the Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of the rule itself, leaving room for further litigation.
Talwani, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama, criticized the Postal Service for feigned compliance
with her earlier injunction, noting that the agency had proceeded to finalize the rule despite her directive. This violation may ultimately inure to Plaintiffs’ benefit,
she said, suggesting the voting rights groups could challenge a finalized rule rather than a hypothetical one.
Illinois Attorney General Joins Multistate Lawsuit, Citing Constitutional Concerns
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul joined a multistate lawsuit against the Postal Service, calling the rule blatantly unconstitutional.
Raoul argued that the U.S. Constitution grants states, not the federal government, the authority to administer elections. The U.S. Constitution plainly gives states — not the executive branch — the power to administer elections, and I am committed to swiftly fighting against this blatantly unconstitutional rule,
he said in a statement.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, includes 23 states and the District of Columbia. It accuses the Trump administration of overstepping its authority by using the Postal Service to enforce voter eligibility checks. The suit also cites Trump’s own social media posts, including a 2020 tweet claiming mail voting would LEAD TO THE END OF OUR GREAT REPUBLICAN PARTY
and a 2025 post stating his goal to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS.
Illinois officials highlighted the practical challenges of implementing the rule, noting that the state has not received a federal list of U.S. citizens and lacks clarity on how to comply. Nationally, about 30% of voters use mail-in voting in order to cast their ballots, and that ought to continue to be accessible to those voters,
said Illinois Executive Deputy Attorney General Cara Hendrickson.
The legal battle has drawn attention to the broader debate over mail-in voting. Voting rights groups, including the League of Women Voters, argue that the rule undermines access to the ballot. The president has not been given power he never had — and Americans should not be discouraged from using a secure and widely trusted way to cast their ballots because of misleading headlines,
said Celina Stewart, the head of the League of Women Voters.
What Comes Next: A Race Against Time for the Midterms
The outcome of the legal fight will determine whether the Postal Service’s rules take effect in time for the 2026 midterms. The Supreme Court’s decision has created uncertainty, but the judge’s upcoming hearing on a preliminary injunction could provide clarity.
Meanwhile, states like California and others have pledged to continue challenging the rule. States, including California as well as arms of the Democratic Party, have separately announced plans to continue challenging Trump's executive order and its implementation,
according to one source. The voting rights groups also plan to file a new complaint on Wednesday, as the court battles intensify.
The final resolution of this dispute will shape the accessibility of mail-in voting for millions of Americans. As the November election approaches, the legal and political stakes grow higher, with the outcome potentially affecting control of Congress.
