Second federal judge blocks mail-ballot rule as Supreme Court weighs dispute

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., issued a second preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Postal Service from implementing a new mail-ballot rule, adding another obstacle to an emergency dispute already before the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols issued the order late Sunday, September 13, 2026. He wrote that, without an injunction, there was an increased risk that a significant number of otherwise appropriate absentee or mail ballots would ultimately not be counted.

The order is not a final ruling on whether the USPS rule is lawful. It temporarily blocks mandatory implementation while the broader litigation continues.

Two courts have blocked the rule

Judge Nichols’s Washington order is separate from a September 4 preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts order is the one directly involved in the administration’s emergency application to the Supreme Court.

The administration is asking the justices to put the Massachusetts injunction on hold. The Supreme Court docket identifies the matter as USPS v. California, No. 26A305, an emergency stay application docketed September 6.

The Solicitor General withdrew an earlier stay application, No. 26A297, and filed the new application challenging the Massachusetts preliminary injunction. The docket shows responses and amicus filings on September 9, followed by the government’s reply on September 10. As of September 14, the docket showed no Supreme Court ruling on the application.

What the USPS rule would require

The rule issued August 21 would require states and local election officials to obtain USPS approval for ballot-envelope designs. It also would require voter-specific information to be uploaded to a USPS online portal.

The First Circuit described an additional technical requirement: an Intelligent Mail barcode printed on outgoing and return ballot envelopes would have to match the barcode uploaded to a USPS database. The appellate court also noted that the portal was not yet operational.

Election officials have raised concerns about completing those steps while states are preparing and mailing ballots for the 2026 midterm elections. The available record describes a prospective risk and implementation problem; it does not establish that ballots have already been rejected under the rule.

The First Circuit declined to lift the Massachusetts injunction. The administration’s Supreme Court filing argues that the lower-court order improperly interferes with the Postal Service’s authority and election-related procedures. Those are the government’s arguments, not findings by the Supreme Court.

Why the timing matters

Mail ballots were already being sent in Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin, according to reporting on the litigation. More states were preparing to distribute ballots during the week of September 13.

That calendar creates a practical problem: election officials are making preparations while courts are deciding whether the federal requirements can take effect. A Supreme Court order on the Massachusetts injunction could determine whether that order remains in force, but it may not resolve every issue raised in the separate Washington case.

What happens next

The justices could grant a stay, deny the request, seek additional information or issue another procedural order. Any such action would address emergency relief concerning the Massachusetts injunction, not necessarily the full merits of the USPS rule or the separate Washington litigation.

For voters, the safest source of current instructions remains their state or local election office. Ballot-request deadlines, mailing schedules and return requirements vary by state, and the court status can change quickly as further appeals or emergency filings move forward.

Sources

Look for updates to this story

Discover more from Interactive News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.