Appeals Court Blocks Trump Mail-Voting Rules Before Midterms

Key points

• The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Trump administration's request to stay a preliminary injunction issued by US District Judge Indira Talwani, which blocked the Postal Service from enforcing new mail-ballot requirements.
• The appellate panel, consisting of Judges Gustavo A. Gelpí, Julie Rikelman, and Seth Aframe, stated there is no record evidence of past or impending mail voting fraud for the November 3 election.
• The court found the Postal Service rule likely unconstitutional, as it regulates the manner of holding elections, a power assigned to states and Congress under the Elections Clause, not an executive agency without congressional authorization.
• The new rules require states to use specific ballot designs with unique barcodes and submit voter lists to an online portal, with non-compliant mailings to be returned to election offices.
• Seven Republican chief election officials, including secretaries of state from Georgia, Kansas, and Kentucky, filed a brief urging the Supreme Court not to allow the rule to take effect, citing the Purcell principle against late-stage changes.

Background

This dispute follows a series of legal challenges since August 2026, when the Supreme Court initially allowed the executive order to proceed in a 6-3 decision. Subsequent lower court rulings, including a 14-day halt in September, have blocked enforcement, with judges citing the risk of disenfranchisement and the major questions doctrine regarding federal overreach into state election administration.

How outlets are covering it

The Guardian and CBS News emphasize the legal defeat of the administration's bid, highlighting the appellate court's finding that the rules would cause 'chaos' and disenfranchise millions without preventing fraud. CBS News notes the panel's view that the rule is likely unlawful under the Elections Clause. In contrast, Politico focuses on the political reality, reporting that Republican election officials from seven states are opposing the implementation not on the merits of the rule, but because it is too late to implement without disrupting ongoing election preparations. The Trump administration, via Solicitor General D. John Sauer, continues to argue the rule is a lawful exercise of statutory authority, calling the lower court injunction 'baseless.'

Why it matters

The ruling maintains the status quo for mail-in voting in the 2026 midterms, preventing a federal mandate that could have altered ballot delivery and verification processes. It underscores the tension between federal executive power and state control over elections, with the Supreme Court still weighing whether to intervene in the case.

What to watch

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the administration's request to stay the injunction. The case may proceed to a merits hearing, where the major questions doctrine and the constitutionality of the Postal Service's authority will be central. Election officials will continue preparations for the November midterms under existing state rules.