DOJ petitions Supreme Court to lift stay on USPS mail-ballot rule ahead of midterms

The Justice Department filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking an immediate stay of a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani that blocks key provisions of a new Postal Service rule on mail-in ballots. The administration argues the rule, finalized in late March, is necessary to prevent potential voter fraud and to give states time to comply before the November 2026 midterm elections.

"With respect to the November 2026 election, the order thus partially nullifies the Postal Service’s efforts to address the risk that the federal mails will be used to perpetrate voter fraud, a particularly pernicious species of fraud that dilutes the votes of lawful voters, prevents election results from reflecting the will of the American people, and undermines ‘public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process,’" wrote Solicitor General John Sauer in the filing.

Talwani’s order allows states to continue preparing ballot envelopes voluntarily, but the Justice Department contends this creates confusion and could leave states unprepared. The judge previously ruled that the rule would force states to obtain USPS approval for ballot designs and upload voter data to a new electronic portal, steps she said were impossible to complete before the election deadline.

The district court found the rule likely unconstitutional because it usurps state authority over elections without congressional approval and would impose an “impossible” compliance timeline. It noted that many states have already begun mailing ballots, with some required to start as early as next week, and lack the time and resources to meet the new requirements.

The government maintains that the regulation merely codifies existing USPS recommendations that many states have already adopted and does not constitute a federal takeover of election administration. It described the changes as “modest” and argued that the plaintiffs’ claims lack merit.

The Supreme Court’s earlier decision to overturn Talwani’s earlier injunction, citing that the rule had not yet been finalized, does not resolve the current request for a stay. The case will continue through the appellate process.