Full Breakdown
DOJ Defends USPS Mail-Voting Rule as Courts Scrutinize Its Impact
8/30/2026, 8:47:20 PM
Core Event
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed opposition to a coalition of 25 states and voting groups seeking an injunction against the United States Postal Service’s final rule on mail-in voting. The rule, published on August 26 and effective immediately, requires states to obtain USPS pre-approval of ballot-envelope designs, register every eligible mail voter in a new federal portal, and submit voter-list data for verification. USPS would refuse delivery of ballots that do not meet the envelope standards or are not on the verified list. The DOJ argues the rule imposes only “modest informational requirements” and does not infringe state election authority.
Background & Context
President Donald Trump issued an executive order on March 31 directing the Postal Service to scale back mail-voting access and create a national list of eligible voters. USPS announced a final rule on August 21 that operationalizes the order, expanding to a federal database of compliant voters. Non-compliance could affect ballot delivery in the November 3 midterm elections.
Timeline
- March 31 – Executive order issued.
- August 21 – USPS announces the final rule.
- August 26 – Rule published and takes effect.
- September 3 – Judge Indira Talwani to hear arguments on a preliminary injunction.
- November 3 – Midterm elections, the first major election after the rule’s implementation.
Data & Statistics
- The coalition includes 25 states, among them Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Colorado and Utah, where over 90 % of voters cast ballots by mail.
- The rule requires each state to upload voter data for every eligible mail voter to a new USPS portal, a task the DOJ acknowledges would be “practically impossible” to complete before the November 3 deadline.
- The envelope-design approval process adds an undefined turnaround time for USPS review.
Official Statements & Responses
The DOJ filing characterizes the rule as an exercise of USPS’s authority to handle “sensitive mail,” likening ballot envelopes to “cremated remains or replica explosives.” It contends the rule does not regulate ballot content, voter eligibility, or transmission timelines, only envelope design and labeling.
Criticism & Opposition
The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts argues the rule creates a federal list “nowhere in any statute.” State officials in Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Colorado and Utah warn that non-compliance would effectively cancel elections in jurisdictions that rely heavily on mail voting.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
Legal scholars differ on whether the rule’s requirements are “modest” or an unconstitutional expansion of federal authority. The DOJ maintains the rule imposes only “informational requirements,” while opponents cite the lack of a statutory deadline for envelope approval as evidence the rule could disenfranchise voters. No court has yet ruled on its constitutionality, leaving the impact on the November 3 election uncertain.
Verbatim Quotes
- “I get the question a lot: When does it become too late to implement this executive order?” — David Becker, Center for Election Innovation & Research.
- “For months the US argued that it was premature to seek relief because USPS and DHS had not yet issued their final rules.” — Rick Hasen, UCLA law professor.
- “Every eligible voter has the right to cast a ballot, including by mail,” — Steve Hobbs, Washington Secretary of State.
- “This Trump administration attack on mail-in voting must not be permitted to upend the administration of the upcoming election,” — AG Kaul, Wisconsin Attorney General.
