A preliminary injunction on Friday barred the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing Trump's mail-voting order, replacing Judge Indira Talwani's earlier temporary block as states start mailing midterm ballots.
North Carolina began sending ballots the same day, and Talwani said states cannot rework systems this late without risking disenfranchisement as millions of ballots must go out on fixed schedules.
The order still lets states adopt the new Postal Service system voluntarily, but no state has said it will do so; election officials argue there is not enough time to comply.
The administration already asked the Supreme Court to lift Talwani's earlier order and is expected to appeal again, but the legal fight is tightening as control of Congress is at stake in an election where nearly one-third vote by mail.
Could sudden postal tracking mandates invalidate millions of mail-in ballots just weeks before the election?
How will the legal battle over federal postal regulations reshape the way local elections are administered nationwide?
What happens to the millions of dollars states already spent on voting supplies if new postal rules are enforced?
The 2026 Mail-In Voting Crisis: Legal Battles, USPS Rule Changes, and the Threat of Mass Disenfranchisement Before the Midterms
Overview
In the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections, President Trump’s Executive Order 14399 triggered a rapid chain of events: the USPS released strict new mail-in voting rules, prompting a coalition of states to sue. Judge Talwani blocked the rules with a temporary restraining order, but the Trump administration quickly appealed to the Supreme Court, creating widespread confusion for voters. Meanwhile, the rushed rollout of a federal ballot portal and a harsh batch rejection policy raised fears of mass disenfranchisement. These legal and technical battles, unfolding as mail-in voting began, have deeply shaken public trust and threaten to impact Democratic turnout.