President Trump’s administration has returned to the Supreme Court with an emergency request to revive new Postal Service rules for mail ballots before the November midterms.

The timing is now as important as the legal argument. Some states have already started sending ballots, and several more are scheduled to begin within days.

The Supreme Court docket shows that the Postal Service and other federal applicants filed their stay application on September 3. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson requested a response by 10 a.m. Eastern on September 8, putting the dispute on an unusually compressed timetable.

The filing is listed as United States Postal Service v. California, docket number 26A297, and comes from a group of First Circuit cases challenging the rule. Solicitor General John Sauer represents the federal applicants.

The states have already filed an opposition to an immediate administrative stay. The court has not indicated when it will act after Tuesday’s response deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

The administration is challenging an injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani. Her order prevents the Postal Service from enforcing a final rule that would require states to submit ballot-envelope designs for approval, register with a federal portal and provide data connected to outgoing ballot mail.

The rule itself, published by the Postal Service in the Federal Register, was presented as an election-integrity measure tied to a March executive order. It established federal standards for the preparation and transmission of mail-in and absentee ballots in federal elections.

Federal lawyers argue that the final rule is narrower than the executive order that preceded it. The Solicitor General says the Postal Service would verify envelope-design and barcode requirements, while states would keep control over voter eligibility and their own voter lists.

The application also says the Postal Service would not open ballots or decide whether a voter is qualified. Instead, the agency says it would use information on the outside of mail pieces to confirm compliance with its mailing standards.

Under the government’s description, states could update their lists as needed, and a ballot would not be refused merely because a voter’s name was missing from a submitted list. The application frames the system as a set of technical mailing checks and argues that the injunction prevents the Postal Service from using its ordinary authority over ballot-mail preparation.

The states suing over the rule describe the requirements very differently. They say election officials would have to redesign envelopes, update systems, train workers and upload extensive voter information at a point when much of that work is already complete.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell and the other challengers argue that the rushed change could disrupt established voting procedures and place valid ballots at risk. The coalition includes 25 states and the District of Columbia.

Talwani’s September 4 preliminary-injunction order kept the Postal Service from implementing the rule for the 2026 election. The court concluded that forcing states to comply on the eve of ballot distribution could create irreparable harm.

The challengers say election offices would have to secure federal approval for ballot and return-envelope designs without a guaranteed turnaround time. They also point to the work already completed by local officials: ballots ordered, software configured, instructions printed and workers trained under existing state rules.

ADVERTISEMENT

Their position is that changing those systems now creates operational risk before the legality of the federal rule has been resolved.

The calendar is already moving. North Carolina has begun mailing ballots, Alabama is scheduled to start on September 9, and at least five other states are expected to follow during the week of September 13, according to The Associated Press.

That creates a practical problem for both sides. The government says ballot envelopes cannot be retrieved once they enter the mail stream, while the states say there is no realistic way to rebuild their systems before voting begins.

The dispute also arrives after an earlier Supreme Court ruling involving separate portions of the executive order. This application targets the final Postal Service rule and asks for interim relief, so the justices can act without settling every constitutional and statutory claim raised in the underlying lawsuits.

The justices do not have to decide the full legality of the rule at this stage. The immediate question is whether enforcement should remain blocked while the lawsuit proceeds.

A stay would let the Postal Service begin applying the new standards during the midterms. A denial would leave Talwani’s injunction in place and keep current state procedures operating while the lower courts continue reviewing the case.

With the first response due Tuesday and ballot operations already underway, the Supreme Court’s next move could determine whether the federal government changes mail-ballot handling in the middle of an active election calendar.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.