A federal judge nominated by President Donald Trump blocked a new Postal Service rule governing mail-in ballots, creating a second legal obstacle for the policy as the administration asks the Supreme Court to let it take effect before the Nov. 3 midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols granted Democratic and voting rights groups a preliminary injunction late Sunday, concluding they were likely to prove that central parts of the rule exceeded the authority Congress granted to the Postal Service.
“No statute grants the Postal Service the power to issue key parts of the Rule,” Nichols, nominated by Trump during his first term, wrote in his 24-page order.
Issued in August to implement a Trump executive order, the rule requires election officials to submit the names and addresses of intended mail-in ballot recipients through a federal portal. Officials must provide unique barcodes for outgoing and return envelopes and submit envelope designs for Postal Service review.
The Postal Service would verify that outgoing ballots meet the design standards and correspond to voters enrolled through the portal. Ballot mail that could not be verified would be returned to election officials for correction.
Nichols acknowledged that envelope, labeling, and tracking requirements might fall within the agency’s authority. He concluded, however, that the voter-list and portal provisions went further by imposing substantive conditions on who could receive a ballot through the mail.
The judge also found that implementation could cause delays and errors as states redesign envelopes, obtain federal review, and upload voter information shortly before voting begins. The Postal Service handled at least 54.4 million ballots during the 2022 midterm elections, according to figures cited in his decision.
The administration disputed Nichols’s analysis in a supplemental brief filed with the Supreme Court Monday morning after his decision. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that recipient lists serve postal purposes by ensuring mail goes to the people intended by senders and helping authorities detect fraudulent use of the mail.
The government compared the requirements to registration and tracking procedures for cremated remains and argued that blocking efforts to deter fraud and strengthen public confidence causes irreparable harm, even without evidence that significant mail-in ballot fraud will occur this year.
Nichols found that the government had not produced evidence of significant fraud in the coming election or shown that an injunction would damage its stated interests in election integrity and postal efficiency.
His ruling parallels a Sept. 4 decision by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, a nominee of former President Barack Obama in Boston, who blocked the same rule last month. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to pause Talwani’s injunction while litigation continues.
Sauer told the justices that Nichols offered no materially new reasoning. He argued that a Supreme Court stay of Talwani’s order should prompt Nichols or the federal appeals court in Washington to grant similar relief.
GENERAL ELECTION SEASON IS HERE. WHERE DOES MAIL-IN VOTING STAND?
Nichols previously declined to block Trump’s executive order because the Postal Service had not finalized its rule. After the agency did so, he found the challenge was no longer premature, similar to how litigation has taken place so far in Talwani’s courtroom.
Ballots are already going out in several states. The Supreme Court can act on the administration’s emergency application at any time.