Judge Freezes USPS Mail-Ballot Rule for 14 Days

The Frank reviewed the order itself. It is an 11-page "Memorandum and Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motions for a Temporary Restraining Order," dated Aug. 27, 2026, filed as Document 218 in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-11549-IT, and as Document 31 in California v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 1:26-cv-13917-IT. The two motions were joined for briefing.

This is emergency relief, not a decision on the merits. The order describes a TRO as "a provisional remedy imposed to maintain the status quo until a full review of the facts and legal arguments is available," and as an "extraordinary and drastic remedy" that is "never awarded as of right."

The Frank could not independently read the order's final operative paragraphs, which set the expiry date and hearing schedule; the 14-day figure and the Sept. 3 hearing date are attributed to those outlets above.

The order lays out what the rule demanded of states: ballot and return envelopes had to meet USPS design requirements; state or local election officials had to submit those designs to USPS for approval; and only after approval could officials input each voter's information into a USPS-run electronic portal. Where an official did not get design approval, did not upload voter information, or did not include unique intelligent mail barcodes, the order says, "the USPS will not mail ballots to voters."

The Supreme Court angle

The Supreme Court cleared the Postal Service's path four days earlier on procedural grounds. In an Aug. 24 per curiam order, the justices held Talwani's court lacked jurisdiction to review challenges to Trump's March executive order while it was still speculative whether USPS would propose a rule, weigh comments and issue a final rule. The order Talwani issued Thursday quotes the high court's admonition that "[f]ederal courts review final rules, not proposed rules — and certainly not antecedent internal directives to propose a rule."

Her order also quotes the same Supreme Court decision noting that its disposition "does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful." Democracy Docket reported she seized on that distinction, writing that "now that the USPS has published the Final Rule, Plaintiffs' challenges are ripe."

Who is suing

Per the order's caption, the state plaintiffs are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, along with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro in his official capacity. The organizational plaintiffs include the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the League of Women Voters of the United States, the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, the U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority.

The Postal Service said in the rule that it "will not play any role in determining voter eligibility, maintaining voter rolls, or counting ballots."