“Weeks before a national election, the Postal Service tried to make itself the gatekeeper of every ballot in the country,” said John Cusick, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund.
The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the Trump administration from enforcing new federal requirements for mail-in ballots ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections. In a September 14 ruling, the justices declined to lift a preliminary injunction against a U.S. Postal Service regulation that would have required states to submit voter information to a federal database and use specially approved ballot envelopes and barcodes.
The decision allows states to continue using their existing mail voting procedures for November, although litigation over the federal government's authority to impose the requirements remains ongoing.
During a news briefing hosted by American Community Media in collaboration with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, voting rights attorneys explained how the case developed and what the ruling means for voters, particularly those who depend on mail ballots because of disabilities, language barriers, geographic isolation or limited access to polling places.
The restrictions originated in an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on March 31, titled “Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The order directed federal agencies to compile information on U.S. citizens and instructed the Postal Service to develop new requirements for delivering federal election ballots.
Under the resulting regulation, election officials would have been required to use federally approved envelopes, upload voter names and addresses to a new online portal, and provide barcodes corresponding to that information. Ballots that failed to meet the requirements could have been rejected for delivery.
Cusick said the regulation presented immediate logistical problems for state and local election administrators. With fewer than 70 days remaining before Election Day, many jurisdictions had already printed their ballot envelopes, and some had begun distributing ballots. North Carolina, for example, began mailing ballots on September 4.
At a September 3 court hearing, the Department of Justice acknowledged that the federal portal was not yet operational. Election officials had not received training, while existing state laws imposed their own requirements for ballot envelopes and election mail.
The American Postal Workers Union submitted a brief supporting the legal challenge, citing concerns about training and the feasibility of implementing the changes.
An anonymous federal whistleblower with knowledge of USPS systems also raised concerns about the portal's development. According to the account discussed during the briefing, the system had been developed on a compressed schedule and could have rejected otherwise lawful ballots even if it functioned as designed.
Approximately one-third of American voters cast their ballots by mail in the 2024 presidential election. Mail voting is particularly important in states such as Oregon and Washington, where it is the primary method of participation.
Niyati Shah, senior director of litigation at Asian Americans Advancing Justice, discussed the implications for voters who need additional time or assistance to participate in elections. These include older adults, people with disabilities, rural residents, college students and voters who require language assistance.
Shah said Asian American voters use mail voting at approximately twice the national rate. Completing a ballot at home allows voters to review election materials and seek assistance in their preferred language without the time constraints of a polling location.
The litigation was brought in federal court in Massachusetts by a coalition that included the League of Women Voters, the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, the U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority.
Ethan Harrenstein, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project, said the plaintiffs challenged the administration's authority to impose election requirements through the Postal Service.
The Constitution assigns responsibility for administering federal elections to the states, subject to Congress's authority to regulate them. The plaintiffs argued that the president cannot independently replace state election procedures and that Congress has not authorized USPS to refuse delivery of otherwise lawful election mail based on standards established by the agency.
The district court initially blocked implementation of the executive order's mail ballot provisions on August 11. A separate challenge brought by states led by California subsequently reached the Supreme Court, which ruled on August 24 that the executive order had been challenged prematurely because the Postal Service had not completed its regulatory process.
By then, USPS had issued its final rule. The plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to challenge those requirements directly, and the district court issued a second preliminary injunction on September 4.
The court found that implementing the regulation so close to the election would likely prevent eligible voters from receiving ballots. It also identified substantial legal problems with the Postal Service's claimed authority.
USPS appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking permission to enforce the regulation while litigation continued. On September 14, the justices declined to lift the injunction.
“The government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the District Court's preliminary injunction,” the Supreme Court stated in its order.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately that the Postal Service might possess statutory authority to adopt such requirements, but that implementation before the 2026 election would violate federal administrative law because election officials lacked sufficient time to comply.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the government had met the requirements for emergency relief and questioning aspects of the plaintiffs' legal standing.
The ruling was therefore limited in scope. It prevented enforcement of the regulation for the November election without permanently resolving whether the Postal Service could adopt similar requirements in the future.
Harrenstein said the case would continue in the lower courts, where the plaintiffs intend to seek a permanent injunction.
Justin Levitt, counsel for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice, discussed the practical consequences of the proposed requirements. He said the system could have affected millions of voters whose participation depends on timely postal delivery, including military personnel stationed abroad and residents of remote communities.
The proposed federal portal also raised questions about the collection and management of voter information. States would have been required to transfer personal information to a new federal system without established procedures for correcting errors or addressing discrepancies between state election records and postal data.
During the briefing, reporters raised additional concerns about voter intimidation and the possibility of federal immigration enforcement officers appearing near polling places. The attorneys distinguished those issues from the mail ballot litigation, noting that separate legal challenges address restrictions on enforcement activity around voting locations.
Shah said mail voting can be especially important for eligible voters in mixed-status families who are concerned about visiting polling places. It allows voters to complete ballots privately and obtain language assistance when needed.
Asked whether the restrictions were intended to affect particular political groups, Harrenstein said the practical consequences would extend across party affiliations. People with disabilities, students, military personnel and rural residents all depend on mail voting for different reasons.
Reporters also asked how voters could confirm that their ballots had been received and counted. Cusick explained that tracking and ballot correction procedures vary by state. Some jurisdictions allow voters to monitor their ballots online and correct signature problems, while others offer fewer opportunities to resolve errors.
California automatically mails ballots to active registered voters and provides online ballot tracking. Voters can return ballots by mail, at authorized drop boxes or through designated election offices and voting locations.
The attorneys recommended checking registration information, following state-specific instructions and returning ballots early. Voters who do not receive an expected ballot or encounter problems with tracking should contact their local election officials.
Shah directed voters to Vote411.org and the national Election Protection hotline, 866-OUR-VOTE, which provides assistance with registration, ballot access and voting procedures. Additional language assistance is available through hotlines serving Asian American, Spanish-speaking and Arabic-speaking voters.
For now, the injunction prevents USPS from refusing to deliver mail ballots because they do not meet the administration's new federal requirements. State election laws and established mail voting procedures remain in effect.
The underlying legal dispute will continue after November, with courts considering how far the federal government can go in regulating election mail.
“The new USPS restrictions are blocked,” Harrenstein told reporters. “USPS cannot use them to refuse to deliver mail ballots.”
