U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a 14-day temporary restraining order blocking key portions of a new U.S. Postal Service (USPS) policy that governs outbound mail-in ballots. The rule, initially developed in response to an executive order from President Donald Trump, requires election officials to submit ballot-envelope designs for approval and upload voter information and unique tracking barcodes to a new USPS portal.
Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Election Project, criticized the ruling, suggesting the judge is attempting to "run out the clock" on the implementation of the standards. "Because of the antics of the left in this case, it’s very possible that we will not be able to get this rule put in place for the 2026 midterms," Snead told Fox News Digital. "Ballots do go out in just a couple of days, and I think, to a certain extent, their campaign to run out the clock may have succeeded."
Talwani’s order came as North Carolina county election boards were scheduled to begin mailing absentee ballots for the 2026 midterm elections. Snead and attorney Gregory Teufel, founder of OGC Law, LLC, noted that election officials in the state had already begun taking steps to comply with the USPS requirements.
The judge concluded that compliance with the new rules was "practically impossible" for states to meet before the approaching elections, citing the time and financial resources required to redesign ballot envelopes, obtain USPS approval, modify election management systems, and train officials to use the new portal. She warned that eligible voters could be disenfranchised.
Snead countered that the rule largely codifies existing USPS recommendations into mandatory requirements and that the compliance burdens are minimal. "It’s a fairly straightforward rule," Snead said. "It’s largely premised on best practices that are already in place and gathering data that states already possess. The burdens are extraordinarily minimal as far as compliance is concerned, and the Postal Service is really just trying to better regulate the mail—not attempt to seize control of elections or to take away fundamental constitutional questions, like who is eligible to vote, away from the states."
This is not the first legal challenge to the policy. The dispute previously reached the Supreme Court, which stayed Talwani’s earlier judgment on August 24. The Supreme Court’s action came after concluding that the Trump administration was likely to prevail on its argument that the original challenge was premature because USPS had not yet issued a final rule. The justices did not rule on the lawfulness of the executive order or the subsequent USPS rule.
After USPS finalized the policy, Democratic-led states amended their lawsuit to challenge the rule directly. Talwani then issued the latest temporary restraining order. Teufel suggested that the court itself created the problem of limited time for compliance. "Ironically, the judge created that problem because her original injunction prevented the U.S. Postal Service from developing the rules earlier, months earlier, which would have allowed the states more time to prepare to follow the rule if the Supreme Court were to allow the rule to proceed," he stated.
Talwani, however, disputed this characterization in her latest order, asserting that USPS had proceeded with publishing a proposed rule, receiving comments, and issuing its final policy despite the earlier injunction.
Talwani is scheduled to hear arguments on Thursday regarding the challengers’ request for a preliminary injunction, which could block the USPS rule for a longer duration. The current 14-day temporary restraining order remains in effect while the Trump administration’s appeal of Talwani’s earlier judgment is pending before the First Circuit.
Snead argued the core of the legal dispute centers on whether USPS is regulating elections or merely setting conditions for the mail it handles. "What the government counters is that this is just a Postal Service rule like any other and that the Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail that is using the Postal Service," Snead said. "This is essentially the same sort of rule as requiring that mail pieces be in envelopes, for instance, or have postage paid."
Even if the policy does not take effect for the upcoming midterms, Snead believes states will have ample time to comply before the 2028 presidential election, calling it a "mundane rule, very simple to comply with." He added, "It’s not about being able to comply with this rule. It is just about resisting efforts to bring greater transparency and security to mail voting."