Is America Better Yet?

Who Gets to Decide Whether Your Ballot Enters the Mail? — Is America Better Yet?

A federal judge has blocked new USPS mail-ballot requirements for the November midterms. The Postal Service has now gone to the Supreme Court, asking it to let the rules take effect.

Roberto Zapatero

— 8 min read
Share

By Roberto Zapatero
Independent Forensic Investigative Journalist, Is America Better Yet?

Living Record
Reporting checked through September 6, 2026

If you vote by mail because you are older, disabled, away at school, far from a polling place, or simply allowed to do so under your state's law, there is one basic thing that has to happen first:

Your election office has to be able to put your ballot in the mail.

That sounds obvious.

Right now, it is the center of a constitutional fight that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Postal Service issued new requirements for federal-election ballot mail in August. They include rules involving ballot-envelope designs, barcodes, an online Postal Service portal and information supplied by state and local election officials.

The Postal Service says this is about how it handles a special kind of mail. States would still decide who is eligible to vote by mail and whether a returned ballot can be counted.

But the mandatory portions of the rule went further.

If an election office did not complete required steps, the Postal Service could refuse to transmit affected outgoing federal ballots until those requirements were satisfied.

That is why this is no longer just a fight over paperwork.

It is a fight over who gets to control the doorway a ballot has to pass through before it can reach a voter.

First, what did the Postal Service actually change?

President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14399 on March 31, 2026.

Among other election provisions, the order directed the Postal Service to develop new rules governing federal ballot mail.

The Postal Service later issued its final rule, Ballot Mail for Federal Elections.

Under mandatory portions of that system, election officials could be required to use Postal Service-approved ballot and return-envelope standards, register with a federal ballot-mail portal, supply voter information through that portal and meet barcode and enrollment requirements before affected ballots were transmitted.

The Postal Service has argued that these are mailing standards, not voter-eligibility rules.

It would not decide whether you qualify to vote. It would not choose candidates. It would not count your vote.

Those are important distinctions.

But there is another one:

A mailing requirement can still affect a vote if it prevents the ballot from reaching the voter in time.

Why that matters to a real voter

The federal court record describes people who depend on voting by mail because getting to a polling place can be difficult or impossible.

They include older voters, people with disabilities, rural voters, students away from home and people with limited transportation.

Others may need mail voting because they require additional time or assistance.

If their ballot never enters the mail system, the problem is not theoretical.

The voter may never receive it.

And an election has no rewind button.

That concern has now persuaded a federal judge to block the mandatory portions of the Postal Service rule for the November 3 midterms.

What changed on September 4

On September 4, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction against key mandatory sections of the Postal Service's final rule.

That is more significant than the temporary restraining order that was in place when this article was first written.

A temporary restraining order is generally a short emergency pause.

A preliminary injunction can remain in place while the underlying litigation proceeds.

Talwani's September 4 order prohibits the Postal Service, for elections occurring on or before November 3, 2026, from implementing mandatory portions of the rule involving:

  • Postal Service approval of outgoing ballot-mail envelopes;
  • approval requirements for return ballot envelopes;
  • mandatory registration in the federal ballot-mail portal;
  • mandatory voter enrollment through that portal;
  • and provisions that could prevent federal ballot mail from being transmitted when the required steps were not completed.

The judge also barred further preparatory steps to implement those mandatory provisions for the November election.

That does not finally decide the entire lawsuit.

It does mean the rule cannot currently be enforced in the form challenged here for the November 3 election unless a higher court intervenes.

The Constitution gives election authority to states and Congress

Here is the legal dispute in plain English.

Article I of the Constitution says state legislatures establish the time, place and manner of congressional elections.

It also gives Congress power to alter those rules by law.

The President is not given a separate election-rulemaking power in that clause.

That does not mean the federal government has no role in elections.

Congress has enacted many federal election laws.

And Congress has given the Postal Service broad authority to operate the nation's mail system.

The question in this case is where one authority ends and another begins:

When does regulating the mail become regulating the election itself?

The administration says the rule remains on the postal side of that line.

Judge Talwani has reached a different preliminary conclusion.

In her September 4 order, she found the plaintiffs likely to succeed in showing that the mandatory rule operates as an election rule without authorization from Congress.

She separately found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their argument that the Postal Service exceeded its statutory authority.

Those remain court findings at the preliminary-injunction stage.

They are not a final Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the system.

Does the Constitution guarantee voting by mail?

There is another distinction worth keeping clear.

The Constitution does not create a blanket nationwide right requiring every state to allow every voter to vote by mail.

States have different mail-voting laws.

But once a state lawfully makes mail voting available, the process still operates under constitutional protections and federal law.

So this case is not simply about whether the Constitution guarantees mail voting.

The deeper question is whether an executive-branch agency can impose new federal conditions that may prevent a state from mailing a ballot to someone that state says is entitled to receive one.

The procedural problem that came first

The history of this fight gets complicated.

Before the Postal Service issued its final rule, states challenged Trump's executive order.

On August 24, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed an earlier injunction while that litigation continued.

A central issue was that the challenge had come before the Postal Service's final rule was in place.

The Court did not rule that whatever final rule the Postal Service eventually adopted would necessarily be lawful.

Then the final rule arrived.

The states and voting organizations challenged the actual rule.

Judge Talwani temporarily blocked it August 27.

After a September 3 hearing, she issued the broader preliminary injunction on September 4.

Now the dispute has returned to the Supreme Court.

The Postal Service has asked the Supreme Court to intervene

On September 6, the United States Postal Service and other federal applicants filed a new emergency application with the Supreme Court.

They are asking the Court to stay Judge Talwani's September 4 preliminary injunction while the litigation continues.

The case is United States Postal Service, et al. v. California, et al., No. 26A305.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who handles emergency matters arising from the First Circuit, directed the parties opposing the government's application to respond by 4 p.m. EDT on September 9.

The Solicitor General withdrew an earlier stay application filed September 3 because the district court's new September 4 preliminary injunction changed the order the government needed the Supreme Court to review.

That means the central question has moved again.

For now, the mandatory Postal Service rules remain blocked for the November election.

The Supreme Court could leave that injunction intact, stay it, modify it or take some other procedural action.

Until the Court acts, no one should describe the final outcome as settled.

What the government says

The administration disputes the district judge's reasoning.

Its position is that the Postal Service is regulating the handling of mail rather than taking over state election administration.

The government argues that common standards can help the Postal Service process ballot mail reliably and protect election integrity.

Those arguments deserve to be represented accurately.

But courts also examine what a government rule does, not merely what an agency calls it.

And the challenged provisions would make compliance with federal requirements a condition of transmitting certain ballot mail.

That practical effect is at the heart of the lawsuit.

What the evidence establishes — and what it does not

Established: The Postal Service created new mandatory requirements affecting federal ballot mail.

Established: Judge Talwani has preliminarily blocked key mandatory portions of those requirements for elections occurring on or before November 3.

Established: She found the challengers likely to succeed on claims that the Postal Service lacked constitutional and statutory authority for those provisions.

Established: The Postal Service has asked the Supreme Court to stay that injunction.

Not established: The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that new application.

Not established: The September 4 preliminary injunction is not a final ruling resolving every legal issue in the case.

Not established: Nothing in this court record proves that mail-ballot fraud has never occurred anywhere.

The narrower question is the important one:

When the federal government places new conditions on election administration, what problem is it addressing, where does its authority come from, and what happens to voters if the system fails?

What happens next

The next immediate deadline is September 9 at 4 p.m. EDT, when responses to the government's Supreme Court application are due.

After that, the Court can act on the emergency request.

The First Circuit litigation also continues.

And beneath those emergency proceedings remains the larger constitutional question:

Can a President direct a federal service agency to impose conditions that change how states carry out a federal election when Congress has not clearly authorized those conditions?

That question has not been finally resolved.

What has changed since this story was first written is important.

A temporary pause has become a preliminary injunction.

The Postal Service's mandatory system is blocked for the November 3 election.

And the federal government is asking the Supreme Court to let it proceed.

For voters, the legal theory matters.

But so does something much simpler.

Will the ballot your state says you are entitled to receive actually be allowed into the mail?

Watch Is America Better Yet? for updates. Subscribe free to get new reporting by email.

Sources

Verification and method note

This reporting was prompted by a Democracy Docket episode supplied to Is America Better Yet? Commentary was not treated as proof.

Consequential factual and legal claims were checked against the Postal Service rule, federal court orders, Supreme Court records, the Constitution and the executive order.

Preliminary court findings are identified as preliminary findings. They are not presented as final Supreme Court holdings.

This is a Living Record. The Supreme Court docket and lower-court proceedings will be checked for material changes.

Artificial intelligence was used to assist with research organization, drafting, editing and verification. AI-generated material was not treated as evidence. Factual claims were checked against identifiable sources before publication.

Roberto Zapatero (IABY) remains responsible for the reporting, writing, sourcing, editorial judgment and final published text. AI assistance does not replace source records, human review, principal article writing or independent verification.

Copyright: © 2026 Roberto Zapatero / Is America Better Yet? All rights reserved.

If you have a court filing, election-office notice or other record that changes this account, contact Is America Better Yet?. Please remove private voter information, account details and unnecessary identifying information before sending records. Keep discussion factual and civil.

Thank you to the readers and researchers who help follow the court record and make complicated public issues easier to understand.

Roberto Zapatero
Independent Forensic Investigative Journalist
Is America Better Yet?

I write for you.

— Roberto

https://www.isamericabetterye

Read more