NEW YORK, NY, August 26, 2026 — On Tuesday, a federal judge decided not to issue an injunction against new Postal Service restrictions on mail-in voting. The agency issued the rule in violation of a previous court order, ruled Judge Indira Talwani. However, she stopped short of ordering an outright ban on it.
What the Rule Requires
Under the rule, states must submit lists of voters who have received ballots by mail to the Postal Service. It also requires one-of-a-kind barcodes on ballot outer envelopes, whether outbound or returned. This includes rolling back regulations and speeding up investments in areas where President Trump signed executive orders earlier this year.
The order came weeks after Trump waged a campaign of misinformation surrounding mail-in voter fraud. State control is at the core of federal election administration according to the Constitution. Critics say the rule stretches that constitutional separation of powers.
A Judge’s Rebuke
Talwani, an Obama appointee, said the US Postal Service “pretended to comply” with her previous order. She said that the agency did not adhere to an explicit order from her not to implement the rule while litigation was underway. Although that finding, she noted, did not lead her to immediately block.
Talwani noted that the Postal Service admitted it would be unable to carry out the rule while her injunction is in effect. The violation “may in the end redound to the benefit of Plaintiffs,” she said. So, that line of reasoning means challengers can now challenge the final rule instead of a theoretical one.
A Split at the Supreme Court
Talwani’s decision came a day after the Supreme Court removed one of two prior injunctions that Talwani had issued. An elevated court of six-three conservative majority held that a challenge from Democratic-controlled states could be premature. Final rules, not proposed rules or internal directives, are what is subject to judicial review, justices wrote.
The second injunction ordered by Talwani, which was requested by voting rights organizations such as the League of Women Voters, is an ongoing ban. The Postal Service is still barred from enforcing the rule right now thanks to that separate order. The conflicting rulings have created uncertainty around whether the regulation is to continue.
What Comes Next
California and other states had said they would continue their fight against the executive order. So has the Democratic Party, whose organizations have also indicated they plan to litigate on additional fronts. The legal battle arrives in less than a quarter to October 2026, ahead of the November midterm elections.
The Postal Service and the plaintiffs did not respond immediately to requests for comment on Tuesday’s ruling. Further hearings are to come as the underlying questions of law play out in federal court. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission publishes information on the administration of federal elections.
Voting rights advocates noted the mixed outcome, but say much-needed protections remain in place. As the November date approaches, state election officials are watching the litigation closely. The fate of the rule will likely be decided after additional rulings.
The overlapping injunctions, they say, underscore the difficulties in challenging federal rulemaking while it’s in process
READ MORE:
The case likely will remain unresolved through much of the campaign season over the fall. The two sides will submit further briefs before the next hearing in the case.
