by Emmitt Barry, Worthy News Washington D.C. Bureau Chief

(Worthy News) – A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump has blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing new requirements for mail-in ballots, handing the administration another legal setback weeks before the Nov. 3 midterm elections.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols issued the preliminary injunction Sunday night in three consolidated cases brought by Democratic organizations and civil-rights groups. His order bars the Postal Service from implementing or enforcing its entire “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections” rule while the litigation continues.

The ruling does not settle the case. It does, however, prevent the safeguards from taking effect during a critical stretch of the election calendar, when several states have already begun sending absentee ballots.

Nichols concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to show that the Postal Service exceeded the authority Congress gave it.

“No statute grants the Postal Service the power to issue key parts of the Rule,” Nichols wrote in his 24-page memorandum opinion.

The Postal Service adopted the rule in response to Trump’s March executive order on election integrity. The administration said the changes would improve the tracking of federal ballot mail, deter fraud and strengthen public confidence in election results.

Under the rule, election officials would have been required to use envelopes bearing the official Election Mail logo and voter-specific Intelligent Mail barcodes. Officials also would have submitted each mail voter’s name, address and barcode information to a new Federal Ballot Mail Portal.

The Postal Service could refuse outbound ballot mail that failed verification, returning it to election officials for correction.

Supporters argued that those requirements would establish a clearer chain of custody and make it easier to reconcile ballot-mail records. An Alabama-led coalition of 13 state attorneys general told the Postal Service that the proposal addressed genuine vulnerabilities while leaving states in control of their elections.

Nichols nevertheless found that the voter-list and verification requirements went beyond regulating the physical delivery of mail. In his view, they crossed into the administration of elections—an area in which the Constitution assigns the central roles to the states and Congress.

The judge acknowledged that some envelope-design requirements might fall within the Postal Service’s traditional authority. He declined to preserve those portions, however, because the rule’s design, portal and rejection provisions were closely connected.

Court Points to Risk of Discarded Ballots

Nichols also found that enforcing the rule so close to Election Day could prevent otherwise lawful ballots from being counted.

The record indicated that election offices would have to redesign and reprint envelopes, obtain Postal Service review, upload voter information and adjust their procedures on a compressed timetable. More than 50 million pieces of federal ballot mail could move through the postal system during the election cycle, according to evidence cited by the court.

The administration described the requirements as modest and maintained that blocking them would undermine efforts to detect fraud and restore confidence in mail voting.

Nichols agreed that the government has a legitimate interest in public confidence and efficient postal operations. But he said officials had not presented evidence showing that significant fraud would occur during the midterms without the rule. He concluded that the danger of eligible voters losing access to their ballots outweighed the government’s claimed injury.

That conclusion will frustrate Americans who believe mail voting needs stronger safeguards. Public trust cannot be dismissed as partisan. Yet the constitutional question remains just as important: Election security measures must rest on lawful authority to command lasting confidence.

Supreme Court Fight Continues

Nichols previously rejected an attempt to block the president’s executive order in May, ruling that the dispute was premature because the Postal Service had not yet adopted a final regulation. He expressly allowed the challengers to return after the agency acted.

They did so after the rule was finalized in August.

A federal judge in Massachusetts has issued a separate injunction against the same rule. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift that order, and the administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

The Justice Department informed the justices Monday of Nichols’ new ruling. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that requiring recipient lists would help the Postal Service confirm ballots were sent to intended voters, track the mail, and identify possible fraud.

Even if the Supreme Court stays the Massachusetts injunction, the government would still need relief from Nichols or the D.C. Circuit before enforcing the rule.

The dispute now presents two questions that deserve sober answers: What safeguards are necessary to preserve confidence in mail voting, and which branch of government has the lawful power to impose them?

Both election integrity and constitutional restraint matter. A durable policy will have to respect them together.

Copyright 1999-2026 Worthy News. This article was originally published on Worthy News and was reproduced with permission.