Appeals Court Keeps Postal Service Ballot-Mail Rule Blocked for Nov. 3 Midterms

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Thursday refused to pause a Massachusetts judge’s preliminary injunction against key parts of the U.S. Postal Service’s new ballot-mail rule, leaving those requirements blocked for the Nov. 3 midterm elections while the appeal moves forward.

The rule, titled “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections,” was published in the Federal Register on Aug. 26 and listed as effective Aug. 21. It would require election officials to use voter-specific Intelligent Mail barcodes on outbound and return ballot envelopes, get USPS approval for ballot-envelope designs, register with and upload voter information to a USPS portal, and follow verification procedures under which the Postal Service could decline to accept noncompliant ballot mailings. State and local election officials argued those steps would force last-minute redesigns, reprinting and new data-sharing procedures after ballot preparation had already started in some places.

Thursday’s order keeps in place a Sept. 4 preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts. Talwani blocked specified mandatory parts of the rule for elections on or before Nov. 3, 2026, after finding the challengers were likely to succeed on claims that USPS exceeded its authority and intruded on states’ role in administering federal elections. In denying the Trump administration’s motions for a stay — and denying USPS’s separate request for an administrative stay — the First Circuit said the appellants had not met their burden for that emergency relief after the district court found likely success on the merits, irreparable harm, that the balance of equities favored the plaintiffs, and that an injunction served the public interest.

The lawsuits were filed by League of Women Voters groups and a multistate coalition led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington, joined by other states and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. The dispute grew out of a USPS rulemaking tied to President Donald Trump’s March 31, 2026, executive order on federal election administration. USPS proposed the ballot-mail rule on June 2 and finalized it in late August, just weeks before the midterms.

Timing has been central to the case. Courts and outside groups representing election officials told the judiciary that many jurisdictions begin mailing ballots in early September, and federal law requires states to send ballots to military and overseas voters by Sept. 19. An amicus brief from election officials said North Carolina mailed its first ballots on Sept. 4, the same day Talwani issued her injunction.

USPS’s own court filing highlighted the implementation concerns. In a Sept. 3 declaration, Steven W. Monteith, the Postal Service’s chief customer and marketing officer, said USPS “anticipate[s] being in a position to make the Portal available to users for voluntary use by sometime next week.” That timeline became part of the challengers’ argument that election offices could not reasonably comply before ballots had to go out. Separately, a Senate disclosure published Aug. 31 by Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s office summarized an anonymous whistleblower’s allegations that the portal rollout had been rushed and insufficiently tested. Those claims were presented as allegations in a congressional disclosure, not findings by the court.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office is part of the multistate challenge, said in a statement that “The First Circuit has once again rejected the Trump Administration’s latest attempt to disrupt mail voting.”

The ruling does not decide the underlying case. It means Talwani’s injunction remains in force for now, keeping the blocked mandatory parts of the ballot-mail rule off the table for the Nov. 3 elections unless a higher court intervenes.