US judge blocks Trump-backed USPS mail-ballot rule after earlier injunction

A federal judge in Washington has blocked a Postal Service rule tied to President Donald Trump’s March executive order on federal elections, dealing another setback to an effort that would have tightened conditions on mail-ballot delivery.

Judge Emmet Sullivan issued the ruling on July 1, according to the reporting in the research packet. The challenged USPS proposal would have allowed the agency to refuse ballot deliveries to states that did not share voter-roll data and did not adopt new voting or ballot-handling procedures.

The decision adds a new layer of legal uncertainty around the administration’s attempt to use USPS as leverage in election administration. It also leaves the June 2 proposal in limbo while raising questions about whether the Postal Service will withdraw, revise or defend the rule.

How the dispute began

Trump signed the executive order on March 31, 2026, seeking broader changes to federal election administration and mail voting. That order set the stage for the Postal Service proposal that followed.

USPS published the proposed rule on June 2. In the reporting summarized by the research packet, the plan was described as a way to condition ballot delivery on state cooperation with federal data-sharing demands and ballot-procedure changes.

Voting-rights groups and state plaintiffs argued that the proposal would create unlawful barriers for voters who depend on mail ballots. The NAACP and Public Citizen were among the challengers cited in the reporting.

Sullivan’s ruling did not come in isolation. The legal fight has been moving through multiple courts over the past week, with the Postal Service rule now part of a broader clash over who controls election administration.

Earlier injunctions and legal backdrop

On June 25, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston blocked key parts of the same executive order in a separate case, including in 23 states and the District of Columbia. AP reported that Talwani found the president lacked authority to set election rules that belong to states and Congress.

That ruling mattered because it already limited the administration’s broader election-order strategy before Sullivan acted on the USPS proposal. The Washington decision now extends the pressure to the Postal Service side of the effort.

The July 1 ruling also sits against the backdrop of a 2021 settlement stemming from a NAACP lawsuit over delayed election mail during the COVID-19 era. The Guardian reported that Sullivan said the proposed USPS policy conflicted with that settlement.

That legal history is central to the challenge. The argument was not just that the policy was politically controversial, but that it would run into an earlier court-backed agreement involving election mail handling.

Stakes for voters and states

The research packet says the proposed rule would have directly affected states that refused to share voter-roll data. Those states could have faced the most immediate pressure if USPS had been allowed to limit ballot deliveries.

Election officials in those states would likely have had to deal with uncertainty over how absentee ballots would move through the mail system. For voters who rely on mail ballots, the dispute raised the possibility of new obstacles at the delivery stage.

The stakes are especially high because the issue reaches beyond one rule. It touches the balance between federal power, postal operations and state election authority, with practical consequences for ballot access.

That is why the administration’s effort has drawn strong resistance from voting-rights groups and state actors. If the rule were enforced, it could have become a lever for changing how states administer mail voting without new legislation from Congress.

The latest ruling also lands in a broader legal environment that has remained unsettled on mail voting. On June 29, the Supreme Court upheld state laws allowing some late-arriving mailed ballots to count if they were postmarked by Election Day, underscoring how contested the issue remains.

What happens next

The research packet says USPS or the administration could seek appeal or emergency relief. It also notes that states and voting-rights groups are likely to use the ruling to resist enforcement of the proposed rule.

Another open question is whether USPS will withdraw, modify or extend the June 2 proposal. The agency may also need to clarify whether the rule remains viable in any form after the latest order.

For now, the July 1 decision deepens the legal setback for the administration’s mail-voting agenda and makes the Postal Service rule harder to move forward. With the 2026 midterms approaching, the dispute is likely to remain a live fight over who can set the practical rules for voting by mail.