Courts Lift Blocks on Trump's Mail-In Voting Rules — Here's What's Happening
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani on August 26, 2026 took back a court order that had stopped the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out President Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting. Her decision gave the administration a temporary win in the legal fight over how Americans can vote by mail ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. NPR
A court injunction is a judge's order that pauses a government action while a lawsuit works its way through the courts. Talwani's injunction had been one of two such orders keeping Trump's executive order from taking effect. On August 11, 2026, Talwani issued her injunction, saying the order was likely unconstitutional. ACLU That ruling followed an earlier June injunction from Talwani that applied only to the 23 mainly Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C., that sued over the order. The U.S. Supreme Court had already halted that narrower June injunction on procedural grounds. NPR
Two days before Talwani's August 26 decision, on August 24, 2026, a divided Supreme Court lifted the second of the two injunctions. That cleared the Trump administration to move forward with the executive order restricting mail-in voting ahead of the midterm elections. New York Times; PBS NewsHour The Court's ruling dealt with a procedural issue and did not decide whether the executive order itself is legal. NPR A federal judge had previously ruled that parts of the order were unconstitutional. Reuters
The executive order, issued in March 2026, directed the Postal Service to create a final rule for mail-in ballots. The rule sets new design requirements for ballot envelopes. It also says USPS will deliver mail-in ballots only to people on lists of absentee voters that states would be required to share with the Postal Service. Federal Register
The legal battle has moved through multiple levels of the federal court system with unusual speed. The Supreme Court's August 24 order lifted the injunction that had been blocking enforcement. Talwani's August 26 decision to take back her own nationwide ruling removed the remaining barrier at the district court level. As of August 26, both injunctions against the USPS rule have been dissolved or lifted, at least for now. NPR
The order still faces legal challenges. Lawsuits filed by Democrats, voting rights groups, and two dozen mainly Democratic-led states are still working through the courts. NPR
The broader context here is that the Supreme Court's August 24 decision was about procedure, not about whether the order is constitutional. The justices have not ruled on whether Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting is legal. That question remains unresolved. What the Court did was lift a temporary pause, allowing the administration to move forward while the lawsuits continue. Talwani's decision on August 26 to take back her nationwide injunction removed the second barrier, but both court actions dealt with procedure rather than a final ruling on the order's legality.
The practical impact is real. The USPS rule's requirements, including new envelope design standards and the absentee-voter-list provision, could affect how states run mail-in voting for the November 2026 midterms. States that do not follow the design and list-sharing requirements risk having the Postal Service refuse to deliver mail-in ballots. The groups suing over the order argue it imposes federal rules on a voting system that states have historically run on their own.
Earlier court cases on mail-in voting dealt with different questions. The Third Circuit in Bognet, No. 20-3214, looked at whether voters could have cast mail-in ballots before Election Day given Postal Service delivery times. The Seventh Circuit, in a Democratic National Committee case, upheld an order allowing replacement absentee ballots to be sent electronically to domestic civilian voters. In Common Cause Indiana, plaintiffs challenged Indiana's refusal to allow no-excuse mail-in voting during the COVID-19 pandemic. A Kansas federal court case dealt with counting mail-in ballots before Election Day and handling ballots received within two days of Election Day. An Eastern District of Michigan case involved plaintiffs seeking to stop absentee ballot processing until an election inspector was present. None of those cases dealt with the specific issue here: a federal executive order telling the Postal Service to impose design and delivery rules on mail-in ballots.
The legal fight ahead will test whether the executive order's requirements survive a final ruling. The Supreme Court's August action removed the injunctions but left the constitutional question open. Talwani's August 11 finding that the order is likely unconstitutional remains part of the court record, even though her nationwide injunction has been taken back. How the district court and eventually the appellate courts handle that finding will determine whether the USPS rule stays in effect for the midterm cycle and beyond.
