Judge Indira Talwani blocks USPS mail ballot rule again
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani on Thursday temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing a newly finalized rule restricting mail-in ballots ahead of the November 2026 midterms. The 14-day order halts envelope standards, federal portal registration, and provisions allowing USPS to withhold ballot mail from noncompliant states—one day after she lifted a prior injunction.
The ruling is the latest twist in a fast-moving legal fight over President Donald Trump's March executive order on mail-in voting. Talwani acted in cases brought by the League of Women Voters and a coalition of more than two dozen states, including New York and Washington.
Key Takeaways
- Judge Indira Talwani issued a 14-day temporary restraining order blocking core USPS mail-ballot requirements for elections on or before November 3, 2026.
- The blocked rule would have required states to submit ballot-envelope designs for USPS approval, register in a federal portal, and upload voter data—or risk having ballots refused for mailing.
- Talwani found the regulation likely unconstitutional and said states lack the time and funds to comply before midterms, with some legally required to send ballots as early as next week.
- The order came one day after Talwani lifted a prior injunction, following a Supreme Court decision that said she had acted too hastily in an earlier challenge.
- A September 3 hearing will determine whether a longer preliminary injunction is warranted; the Trump administration could also seek emergency Supreme Court review.
What Did Judge Indira Talwani Block?
The USPS finalized its "Ballot Mail for Federal Elections" rule on August 26, implementing a key provision of Trump's executive order. According to NBC News, the measure directed the Postal Service to track mail-in ballots and potentially reject those submitted by people not on a federal list of eligible voters.
Talwani's order stays enforcement of mandatory ballot- and return-envelope standards, required registration in the USPS Federal Ballot Mail Portal, mandatory voter enrollment, and provisions letting the agency refuse to mail noncompliant ballots. She wrote that Congress did not delegate authority to USPS to regulate election mail and that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits.
Why Does This Ruling Matter for the 2026 Midterms?
With midterms little more than two months away, Talwani said compliance would be "practically impossible." Many states have already ordered mail ballots, and some must begin sending them to voters next week. North Carolina is set to mail ballots to military and overseas voters on September 4.
The judge also noted the administration had not offered any evidence regarding fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting. She wrote that the government's interest in "correcting an unsubstantiated problem through likely unconstitutional means is dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement." New York Attorney General Letitia James called the rule "a clear attempt by the federal government to interfere in elections it has no power to control."
What Happens Next in the Legal Fight?
Talwani scheduled a September 3 hearing to decide whether to grant a longer preliminary injunction—one day before the earliest state deadline for sending mail ballots to military and overseas voters. The Trump administration could seek to quickly overturn Thursday's decision by rushing to the Supreme Court.
Not all of Trump's order remains blocked. A provision requiring the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of eligible voters and send them to states is still in effect. For more on how technology and policy intersect in elections, see our Future Tech & AI Wonders coverage.
How Does the Supreme Court Factor In?
The legal ping-pong intensified this week. On Monday, the Supreme Court's conservative majority lifted a similar injunction Talwani had imposed in a case brought by California and 22 other states, finding she had ruled prematurely without weighing whether the underlying proposal was lawful.
Writing in The Atlantic, legal scholar Duncan Hosie argued the Court's shadow-docket order ignored detailed factual findings Talwani made about burdens on election officials in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Mexico. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent noted those strains "are facts" entitled to deference—yet Talwani lifted her prior injunction Wednesday, saying the Supreme Court's emergency opinion tied her hands. Thursday's new order targets the finalized USPS regulation through a separate legal pathway.