Judge Asks Postal Service: How Will You Handle Mail-In Ballots?
A federal judge in Boston said she had heard "nothing" from the U.S. Postal Service about how it would carry out a plan to regulate mail-in ballots for the midterm elections. She was deciding whether to keep her ban on a proposal that comes from Donald Trump's executive order on elections.
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani heard arguments on September 2, 2026. That was the day before North Carolina was set to become the first state to start mailing ballots to voters. A few towns in Wisconsin had already sent mail ballots to voters earlier that week. (The Globe and Mail)
The hearing happened under time pressure. The week before, Talwani had put a 14-day temporary hold on the Postal Service's plan to stop it from taking effect. A temporary restraining order, or TRO, is a short-term court order that pauses a government action while the judge decides what to do next.
The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in late August that Talwani's original June ban was premature because the Postal Service had not yet published the formal rules explaining how it would apply Trump's executive order. The Postal Service published those rules just before the Supreme Court ruling came down. That let Democrats and voting-rights groups quickly re-file their lawsuits. (The Globe and Mail)
In June, Talwani had barred the administration from carrying out Trump's executive order for the November election, saying the changes came too close to voting. A federal court blocked the Postal Service from implementing the executive order, preventing both federal agencies and USPS from using the order to interfere with voter lists or mail ballots. (ACLU) A federal judge also blocked the USPS proposed restrictions on July 1, 2026, finding they violated a settlement. (Reuters)
The 14-day hold was set to run out the following week, as more states beyond North Carolina started sending out mail ballots. On August 31, 2026, the federal court refused to pause the hold and set a schedule for written arguments, with a September 3 hearing on whether to issue a longer-lasting order. (Election Law Blog)
At the September 2 hearing, Michael Velchik, the Department of Justice lawyer representing the Postal Service, said the administration would likely ask the Supreme Court by the end of the week for permission to resume the plan. The Trump administration had already asked a U.S. appeals court on September 1 to lift the order blocking the restrictions. (The Globe and Mail; Reuters)
Under the USPS plan, before delivering mail ballots for any state, the Postal Service would have to approve the design of the envelopes and require the state to upload a list of voters receiving them to an online portal. Election officials said there was no way they could meet those requirements, which could force them to completely rework their operations. A whistleblower said the restrictions could result in thousands of legal ballots being thrown out. (The Globe and Mail; Reuters)
The plaintiffs — Democrats and voting-rights groups — argued the president has no authority to set election rules. The U.S. Constitution gives that power to the states and, in some cases, to Congress. North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson sued over the new mail-in ballot rule, and both trial and appellate courts ruled in his favour, issuing an order preventing the plan from taking effect. (The Globe and Mail; North Carolina Department of Justice)
A U.S. Court of Appeals order issued July 25, 2026 told the Postal Service not to deliver any mail-in or absentee ballot unless the voter's name appears on a state-specific list. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit) The blocked order would have let the Postal Service refuse to deliver ballots if states did not provide lists of eligible voters. (Reuters)
Trump has long opposed mail voting and falsely blamed it for his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, even though he often votes by mail himself. (The Globe and Mail)
The broader context here is a procedural back-and-forth in which the Postal Service's timing of its rule publication appears to have been planned around what the Supreme Court requires before it will hear a case. The Court said Talwani's original ban was premature because there were no finalized rules yet. USPS published the rules just before that ruling came down, and the administration then moved to resume the plan as soon as that procedural problem was fixed. That left plaintiffs arguing the same core questions again — whether the president can set election rules, whether states can realistically comply, and whether legal ballots could be discarded — but with less time, and with ballots already in the mail.
The key question now is whether Talwani turns her short-term hold into a longer-lasting injunction before the 14-day window runs out, or whether the Supreme Court steps in at the administration's request and lets the plan go ahead while the constitutional questions stay unresolved. The case also raises a question about who has the power to set election rules — the federal executive branch or the states — a tension that Canadian readers may recognize from federal-provincial disputes over who controls what.
The September 3 hearing on the longer-lasting injunction will be the next key moment, scheduled as more states prepare to send ballots to voters.
