The 14-day order blocks mandatory ballot-envelope standards, voter-specific barcodes and voter-data uploads for federal elections through Nov. 3 while the court weighs a longer injunction.
Important takeaway: The supreme Court didn’t decide that Trump’s mail-ballot policies are legal. It ruled that the states’ lawsuit was filed too early because, at that point, the executive order was largely an internal instruction and USPS had not completed a final rule. The Court explicitly said that future measures implementing the order may still be unlawful and may be challenged. The lower court had blocked the administration from taking steps to implement parts of it. The Supreme Court’s decision removes that particular barrier while the appeal continues.
MORRISTOWN, NJ – A federal judge on Thursday, Aug. 27, 2026, temporarily blocked the core of a new U.S. Postal Service rule that would have changed how state and local election officials mail ballots, one day after New Jersey and other jurisdictions challenged it.
The temporary restraining order bars USPS officials from taking further preparatory steps toward or enforcing specified parts of the rule for federal elections held on or before Nov. 3, 2026, including New Jersey’s general election. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued the order for 14 days while motions for a preliminary injunction remain under consideration.
Unless the court extends or replaces it, the 14-day order would run through Sept. 10.
The Postal Service rule, published in the Federal Register on Aug. 26, would have made several previously recommended practices mandatory for federal ballot mail. Outbound and return envelopes would have needed the official Election Mail logo, an automation-compatible design and a voter-specific Intelligent Mail barcode. Election officials also would have had to submit both envelope designs to USPS for review and feedback during each election cycle.
State and local officials then would have registered for a new USPS portal and certified that the envelope review occurred. For every voter receiving a mail ballot, officials would have uploaded the name and address printed on the envelope, the barcodes assigned to the outbound and return envelopes, and the state of the election office that issued the ballot.
USPS would have compared each outbound mailing with the portal data before accepting it. Mailings that failed the verification process would have been rejected and returned to the election office for correction. That acceptance process applied to ballots traveling from election officials to voters. It did not apply to completed ballots voters mailed back, although the rule still set mandatory design standards for return envelopes.
The Postal Service described the requirements as mail-processing and data-reporting standards. It said automation-compatible envelopes and serialized barcodes would improve handling, delivery tracking and the scan data available to law enforcement. The agency also said it would not decide who could vote by mail, manage voter rolls, open ballots or count votes.
New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport joined 23 other attorneys general and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro in challenging the final rule on Aug. 26. Voting-rights organizations brought a parallel challenge.
The states allege USPS exceeded its authority, interfered with state control over elections and imposed a system that election offices could not put in place before ballots must be mailed. USPS and other defendants argued that the agency acted under its general power to adopt regulations needed to perform its postal functions and that the rule imposed modest conditions on federal ballot mail.
Talwani found the challengers were likely to succeed on claims that USPS lacked authority to issue the rule, that the requirements unconstitutionally burdened the states and that USPS could not bar noncompliant election officials from using the mail to send ballots. She wrote that no party had identified a congressional delegation allowing USPS to regulate election administration in that way.
The judge also found a risk of harm that could not be repaired after the election. States had already ordered ballots, some mailing deadlines were days away, and election officials said they lacked the time and money to redesign envelopes, obtain federal review, change election systems, train employees and upload voter records before the Nov. 3 midterms. The court found that voters who rely on mail ballots could lose access if their jurisdictions could not comply in time.
New Jersey’s Division of Elections lists Sept. 19, 2026, as the date counties will begin mailing general-election ballots, although the state says some counties may begin earlier. The rule appeared in the Federal Register less than a month before that statewide date.
The order came three days after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed an earlier injunction against the presidential directive that led to the USPS rulemaking. The Supreme Court found that the states lacked standing when they filed their first case because the executive order directed federal agencies to consider future action but did not itself impose duties on the states.
The Supreme Court did not decide whether the final USPS rule was lawful. Its unsigned opinion said states could challenge a final rule that harmed them and cautioned that measures taken to implement the executive order would not necessarily be legal. New Jersey and the other plaintiffs filed that challenge after USPS completed the rule.
The dispute creates no new step for individual New Jersey voters while the temporary order remains in effect. The stayed requirements placed envelope, barcode and portal duties on election officials. Voters can continue to follow state instructions and check the status of a mail ballot through New Jersey’s Track My Ballot portal.
The court must next decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction that keeps the specified provisions blocked while the lawsuits proceed.