The Supreme Court leaves the mail-ballot rule blocked

The request, the order, and the two signed opinions

What happened

On September 14 the Supreme Court refused the government's emergency request to pause Talwani's block while the appeal goes on. The request had been presented to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on September 6, and she referred it to the full Court. The order is unsigned and three sentences long, and the docket entry for that night is the order itself.²⁵

• On September 14 the Supreme Court refused the government's emergency request to pause Talwani's block while the appeal goes on. The request had been presented to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on September 6, and she referred it to the full Court. The order is unsigned and three sentences long, and the docket entry for that night is the order itself.²⁵

Kavanaugh joined the refusal and wrote one paragraph saying why. He said the Postal Service may well have the legal power to issue the rule. He voted to leave the block in place because forcing the rule onto this year's elections would be "arbitrary and capricious", the Administrative Procedure Act's phrase for an agency decision that was not a reasoned one, since election officials lack the time to carry it out. His reason for the vote is the paragraph's second sentence.¹

• Kavanaugh joined the refusal and wrote one paragraph saying why. He said the Postal Service may well have the legal power to issue the rule. He voted to leave the block in place because forcing the rule onto this year's elections would be "arbitrary and capricious", the Administrative Procedure Act's phrase for an agency decision that was not a reasoned one, since election officials lack the time to carry it out. His reason for the vote is the paragraph's second sentence.¹

Alito, joined by Thomas, would have granted the pause. He calls the block "universal", meaning it reaches beyond the people who sued. He writes that some of the groups that sued likely lack standing, the legal right to bring the case, and that the states' remaining claim, that the agency acted with no legal power at all, is the kind this Court has recently called a Hail Mary pass.¹

• Alito, joined by Thomas, would have granted the pause. He calls the block "universal", meaning it reaches beyond the people who sued. He writes that some of the groups that sued likely lack standing, the legal right to bring the case, and that the states' remaining claim, that the agency acted with no legal power at all, is the kind this Court has recently called a Hail Mary pass.¹

The rule, issued August 21 and published August 26, requires official Election Mail logos, envelopes built for high-speed sorting, a unique barcode for every voter, and an online Federal Ballot Mail Portal where election offices upload each voter's name and address as printed on the outbound envelope, the issuing state, and the barcodes on both envelopes.⁶ On August 25 Talwani found that the defendants "violated the court's Preliminary Injunction" by completing the rule after her Aug. 11 order, and she imposed no further remedy.²¹ The Postal Service's notice for those records lists a purpose of helping determine adherence to federal law and facilitating law-enforcement efforts.¹⁸ The same notice says the records are kept for 5 years.¹⁸

• The rule, issued August 21 and published August 26, requires official Election Mail logos, envelopes built for high-speed sorting, a unique barcode for every voter, and an online Federal Ballot Mail Portal where election offices upload each voter's name and address as printed on the outbound envelope, the issuing state, and the barcodes on both envelopes.⁶
• On August 25 Talwani found that the defendants "violated the court's Preliminary Injunction" by completing the rule after her Aug. 11 order, and she imposed no further remedy.²¹
• The Postal Service's notice for those records lists a purpose of helping determine adherence to federal law and facilitating law-enforcement efforts.¹⁸
• The same notice says the records are kept for 5 years.¹⁸

Outbound ballot mailings that do not comply "will not be accepted".⁶ Noncompliant mailings are returned to the authorized ballot mailer, an election official or a mail service provider that official has authorized to send the ballots.⁶ The check did not apply to voters' returned ballots.⁶ It covers federal general, special and runoff elections; ballots for military and overseas voters, and primaries, sit outside it.⁶ President Donald J. Trump's March 31 executive order directed the Postal Service to start the rulemaking; the Postal Service says the order did not mandate a final rule and that the finished rule was its own decision.⁶ On August 24 the Court had paused an earlier block of the executive order itself, writing that courts review final rules and that if the Postal Service's rule harmed the states they could challenge that rule.⁹

• Outbound ballot mailings that do not comply "will not be accepted".⁶
• Noncompliant mailings are returned to the authorized ballot mailer, an election official or a mail service provider that official has authorized to send the ballots.⁶
• The check did not apply to voters' returned ballots.⁶
• It covers federal general, special and runoff elections; ballots for military and overseas voters, and primaries, sit outside it.⁶
• President Donald J. Trump's March 31 executive order directed the Postal Service to start the rulemaking; the Postal Service says the order did not mandate a final rule and that the finished rule was its own decision.⁶
• On August 24 the Court had paused an earlier block of the executive order itself, writing that courts review final rules and that if the Postal Service's rule harmed the states they could challenge that rule.⁹

Talwani's block covers the rule's mandatory requirements for elections on or before November 3 and does not decide the case. She wrote that her order does not stop states from voluntarily complying with the rule.⁵ Late on September 13, in a separate case in Washington, Judge Carl Nichols entered an order that blocks the Postal Service from "implementing and enforcing" the whole rule, with no election-date limit; his reason is that no statute gives the Postal Service the power to issue key parts of it, so the rule was likely issued without legal authority.¹³⁴ The government told the Court the next morning that a win in Boston would still leave that second order to be lifted in Washington.¹³

• Talwani's block covers the rule's mandatory requirements for elections on or before November 3 and does not decide the case. She wrote that her order does not stop states from voluntarily complying with the rule.⁵
• Late on September 13, in a separate case in Washington, Judge Carl Nichols entered an order that blocks the Postal Service from "implementing and enforcing" the whole rule, with no election-date limit; his reason is that no statute gives the Postal Service the power to issue key parts of it, so the rule was likely issued without legal authority.¹³⁴
• The government told the Court the next morning that a win in Boston would still leave that second order to be lifted in Washington.¹³

The First Circuit had already refused to pause Talwani's block. On September 10, Judges Gustavo Gelpí, Julie Rikelman and Seth Aframe wrote that a general postal statute is a "wafer-thin reed" on which to hang election rules, and that the district court's findings about the harm of letting the rule take effect now, which they saw no error in, included the lack of a working portal.³ Four days later the Supreme Court reached the same result on the pause, and the block on this fall's mandate held at every level it was tested.³²

• The First Circuit had already refused to pause Talwani's block. On September 10, Judges Gustavo Gelpí, Julie Rikelman and Seth Aframe wrote that a general postal statute is a "wafer-thin reed" on which to hang election rules, and that the district court's findings about the harm of letting the rule take effect now, which they saw no error in, included the lack of a working portal.³
• Four days later the Supreme Court reached the same result on the pause, and the block on this fall's mandate held at every level it was tested.³²

Two legal questions, and who has answered which

Where this sits

Two questions run under this case: whether the Postal Service can ever impose a rule like this, and whether it could impose this one this close to an election. On the first, Kavanaugh wrote that "there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority"; on the second, that officials lack the time to carry it out before this year's elections. The unsigned order does not name a ground: it says the government is unlikely to succeed and that the factors the Court weighs before granting emergency relief do not favor a pause.¹²

• Two questions run under this case: whether the Postal Service can ever impose a rule like this, and whether it could impose this one this close to an election. On the first, Kavanaugh wrote that "there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority"; on the second, that officials lack the time to carry it out before this year's elections. The unsigned order does not name a ground: it says the government is unlikely to succeed and that the factors the Court weighs before granting emergency relief do not favor a pause.¹²

The states that sued, led by California, told the Court that the fight is about who runs elections. Under the rule, they wrote, ballots will not be delivered unless each voter is registered in the Postal Service's new portal, a voter-specific barcode is printed on both envelopes, and those barcodes are tied to each voter and uploaded to the portal; with those conditions on delivery, the rule is "an elections regulation". The Constitution, the brief says, "entrusts States with responsibility for regulating federal elections" unless Congress steps in; that provision is the Elections Clause, and it is the ground the First Circuit judged the government's odds on. The government's application called the same requirements modest rules on envelope design and addressee information. Which description is right is the question the appeals will decide.¹⁰³⁸

• The states that sued, led by California, told the Court that the fight is about who runs elections. Under the rule, they wrote, ballots will not be delivered unless each voter is registered in the Postal Service's new portal, a voter-specific barcode is printed on both envelopes, and those barcodes are tied to each voter and uploaded to the portal; with those conditions on delivery, the rule is "an elections regulation". The Constitution, the brief says, "entrusts States with responsibility for regulating federal elections" unless Congress steps in; that provision is the Elections Clause, and it is the ground the First Circuit judged the government's odds on. The government's application called the same requirements modest rules on envelope design and addressee information. Which description is right is the question the appeals will decide.¹⁰³⁸

The rule took effect August 21 with the portal unfinished: on September 1 the Postal Service said it was "now finalizing the portal" and would soon open it to officials who wanted to try it voluntarily.⁶²⁷ Talwani found on September 4 that the portal was not operational, and counted uploading voter data to a portal that did not yet exist among the hurdles facing officials.⁵ The First Circuit listed the lack of a working portal among the harm findings it left standing on September 10.³ The Court refused to lift the block on September 14.² On September 17 the Postmaster General told the Associated Press that the agency had stopped work on the system.⁴² Whether the portal would have worked is disputed on the record: Whistleblower Aid, representing the employee who raised the alarm, told the Court that the verification standard is zero percent failure, meaning a batch of ballots is treated as non-compliant if one envelope fails the barcode check, and the Postmaster General's September 4 statement said "Testing and validation have been continuous throughout the development lifecycle".¹⁹²⁶ Both courts that blocked the rule for this fall counted the portal's absence among the harms.³⁵

• The rule took effect August 21 with the portal unfinished: on September 1 the Postal Service said it was "now finalizing the portal" and would soon open it to officials who wanted to try it voluntarily.⁶²⁷
• Talwani found on September 4 that the portal was not operational, and counted uploading voter data to a portal that did not yet exist among the hurdles facing officials.⁵
• The First Circuit listed the lack of a working portal among the harm findings it left standing on September 10.³
• The Court refused to lift the block on September 14.²
• On September 17 the Postmaster General told the Associated Press that the agency had stopped work on the system.⁴²
• Whether the portal would have worked is disputed on the record: Whistleblower Aid, representing the employee who raised the alarm, told the Court that the verification standard is zero percent failure, meaning a batch of ballots is treated as non-compliant if one envelope fails the barcode check, and the Postmaster General's September 4 statement said "Testing and validation have been continuous throughout the development lifecycle".¹⁹²⁶
• Both courts that blocked the rule for this fall counted the portal's absence among the harms.³⁵

On fraud, the stated purpose of the rule, the First Circuit wrote that there is "no record evidence of past fraud or a likelihood of impending fraud related to the November 3 election".³ The government's reply said the rule would make election fraud harder to commit and easier to catch.¹² Talwani found the record includes no evidence relating to fraudulent mail voting to support the rushed implementation of the rule.⁵

• On fraud, the stated purpose of the rule, the First Circuit wrote that there is "no record evidence of past fraud or a likelihood of impending fraud related to the November 3 election".³
• The government's reply said the rule would make election fraud harder to commit and easier to catch.¹²
• Talwani found the record includes no evidence relating to fraudulent mail voting to support the rushed implementation of the rule.⁵

Election offices already mailing

Who feels it

The people this order lands on are the offices sending ballots for federal general, special and runoff elections, and the voters waiting on them; ballots for military and overseas voters, and primaries, sit outside the rule.⁶ Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the government's lawyer at the Court, told it on September 6 that ballots had already begun to be mailed in North Carolina.⁸ Current and former election officials, in a brief filed September 9 that supported neither side, wrote that changing the rules now "will almost certainly lead to mistakes, delays, and confusion" for voters and officials.¹⁶ For elections through November 3, Talwani's order stops the Postal Service from refusing ballots that do not meet the new rule and leaves states free to comply voluntarily.²⁵

• The people this order lands on are the offices sending ballots for federal general, special and runoff elections, and the voters waiting on them; ballots for military and overseas voters, and primaries, sit outside the rule.⁶
• Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the government's lawyer at the Court, told it on September 6 that ballots had already begun to be mailed in North Carolina.⁸
• Current and former election officials, in a brief filed September 9 that supported neither side, wrote that changing the rules now "will almost certainly lead to mistakes, delays, and confusion" for voters and officials.¹⁶
• For elections through November 3, Talwani's order stops the Postal Service from refusing ballots that do not meet the new rule and leaves states free to comply voluntarily.²⁵

Talwani found that putting a rule issued less than seventy days before the election into immediate effect "threatens disenfranchisement of millions" of citizens who vote by mail.⁵ The states that sued told the Court they expect to mail over 50 million ballots between the filing and Election Day, and Nichols wrote that in 2022 the Postal Service delivered at least 54.4 million ballot pieces to and from voters.¹¹⁴ The first figure is the states' own forecast and the second is the last midterm's count; neither order counts ballots that would be lost. At the preliminary-injunction stage, Nichols found an increased risk that a significant number of otherwise appropriate absentee or mail-in ballots would not be counted.⁴

• Talwani found that putting a rule issued less than seventy days before the election into immediate effect "threatens disenfranchisement of millions" of citizens who vote by mail.⁵
• The states that sued told the Court they expect to mail over 50 million ballots between the filing and Election Day, and Nichols wrote that in 2022 the Postal Service delivered at least 54.4 million ballot pieces to and from voters.¹¹⁴
• The first figure is the states' own forecast and the second is the last midterm's count; neither order counts ballots that would be lost. At the preliminary-injunction stage, Nichols found an increased risk that a significant number of otherwise appropriate absentee or mail-in ballots would not be counted.⁴

Talwani wrote that some states forbid the disclosure of voter information under confidentiality laws protecting victims of domestic abuse or intimate partner violence, and that the rule directly conflicts with those state laws.⁵ A brief from domestic-violence organizations told the Court that 45 states and the District of Columbia have some type of address confidentiality program, and that in Colorado the rule was expected to cause the Postal Service to refuse mail ballots to at least 150,000 eligible but confidential voters.²⁰

• Talwani wrote that some states forbid the disclosure of voter information under confidentiality laws protecting victims of domestic abuse or intimate partner violence, and that the rule directly conflicts with those state laws.⁵
• A brief from domestic-violence organizations told the Court that 45 states and the District of Columbia have some type of address confidentiality program, and that in Colorado the rule was expected to cause the Postal Service to refuse mail ballots to at least 150,000 eligible but confidential voters.²⁰

BBC interviewed local officials the week of the ruling. Anne Dover, election director in Cherokee County, Georgia, said the rule changes would have resulted in "thousands of people disenfranchised" there. Josh Zygielbaum, the clerk of Adams County, Colorado, said the day before the ruling that his envelopes were already printed. Both are interviews the BBC published on September 15.³²

• BBC interviewed local officials the week of the ruling. Anne Dover, election director in Cherokee County, Georgia, said the rule changes would have resulted in "thousands of people disenfranchised" there. Josh Zygielbaum, the clerk of Adams County, Colorado, said the day before the ruling that his envelopes were already printed. Both are interviews the BBC published on September 15.³²

Had the Court granted the pause, offices with ballots already moving would have faced the envelope and portal requirements mid-mailing. The refusal keeps Talwani's command in force: the Postal Service may not treat those mailings as unaccepted for elections on or before November 3.⁵² And by the Postmaster General's account 3 days later, the agency is no longer building the system it would need to enforce the rule this year.⁴²

• Had the Court granted the pause, offices with ballots already moving would have faced the envelope and portal requirements mid-mailing. The refusal keeps Talwani's command in force: the Postal Service may not treat those mailings as unaccepted for elections on or before November 3.⁵²
• And by the Postmaster General's account 3 days later, the agency is no longer building the system it would need to enforce the rule this year.⁴²

Checked against the order

What the coverage got right, and what it got wrong

Thirteen articles follow, errors first.

In these cards, wrong means the order says otherwise; mislabeled means the outlet named the wrong thing; not in the record means the order neither says it nor denies it; checks out means the order says it.

The week after

What happened next

On Tuesday, September 15, Trump wrote on Truth Social that Republicans had just gotten another bad decision from the Court and called it a big loss for Republicans; CNBC and BBC carried the posts.³⁴³² The government's request to the Court ran in his name: the cover of the second of its two cases lists "DONALD J. TRUMP, ET AL., APPLICANTS".⁸

• On Tuesday, September 15, Trump wrote on Truth Social that Republicans had just gotten another bad decision from the Court and called it a big loss for Republicans; CNBC and BBC carried the posts.³⁴³²
• The government's request to the Court ran in his name: the cover of the second of its two cases lists "DONALD J. TRUMP, ET AL., APPLICANTS".⁸

By September 18 the Postal Service's own election-mail page carried an alert headed "Postal Service is not enforcing the federal ballot mail rule for 2026".²⁸ That is an operating decision for this year's elections. Based on the briefing and at the interim stage, Kavanaugh wrote that the final rule has at least a fair prospect of falling within the Postal Service's legal power.¹

• By September 18 the Postal Service's own election-mail page carried an alert headed "Postal Service is not enforcing the federal ballot mail rule for 2026".²⁸
• That is an operating decision for this year's elections. Based on the briefing and at the interim stage, Kavanaugh wrote that the final rule has at least a fair prospect of falling within the Postal Service's legal power.¹

On September 17 Postmaster General David Steiner told the Associated Press that the agency "has stopped work on developing" the computer system at the center of the rule, the portal, and that he had planned to unveil it around September 15. A memo sent to all employees the day before, the AP reported, said the agency will not be enforcing any of the new rules in the 2026 federal election and that election mail is business as usual.⁴² On September 1 the same agency had said it was finalizing the portal and would soon open it to officials who wanted to try it.²⁷

• On September 17 Postmaster General David Steiner told the Associated Press that the agency "has stopped work on developing" the computer system at the center of the rule, the portal, and that he had planned to unveil it around September 15. A memo sent to all employees the day before, the AP reported, said the agency will not be enforcing any of the new rules in the 2026 federal election and that election mail is business as usual.⁴²
• On September 1 the same agency had said it was finalizing the portal and would soon open it to officials who wanted to try it.²⁷

The Associated Press also reported "there are still concerns about postmark delays that could have an impact on this year’s elections," and that late-postmark rejections had risen in Washington and Oregon.⁴²

• The Associated Press also reported "there are still concerns about postmark delays that could have an impact on this year’s elections," and that late-postmark rejections had risen in Washington and Oregon.⁴²

Watching: the First Circuit's decision on the appeal of Talwani's order; whether the government asks a court to lift Nichols's order, which blocks the whole rule with no election-date limit, so the rule as issued cannot start after November 3 unless a court lifts it; and the inspector general's review of the whistleblower's allegations, which its office said on September 8 it planned to conduct.¹³⁵⁴³

• Watching: the First Circuit's decision on the appeal of Talwani's order; whether the government asks a court to lift Nichols's order, which blocks the whole rule with no election-date limit, so the rule as issued cannot start after November 3 unless a court lifts it; and the inspector general's review of the whistleblower's allegations, which its office said on September 8 it planned to conduct.¹³⁵⁴³

On September 4 the inspector general published a separate audit of 2026 primary-election mail, with on-time processing scores ranging from 97.75 to 98.99 percent.²⁹ The audit made 11 recommendations to address the issues identified in the report.²⁹ It found opportunities to increase understanding and enforcement of postmarking ballots, and that communication with customers affected by operational changes could be strengthened.²⁹

• On September 4 the inspector general published a separate audit of 2026 primary-election mail, with on-time processing scores ranging from 97.75 to 98.99 percent.²⁹
• The audit made 11 recommendations to address the issues identified in the report.²⁹
• It found opportunities to increase understanding and enforcement of postmarking ballots, and that communication with customers affected by operational changes could be strengthened.²⁹

Open questions

What we do not know yet

• As of September 18, only Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas had public positions in the order and docket; the other six votes were not public.
• As of September 18, the Supreme Court docket in this case listed no request to lift Nichols's September 13 order.
• As of September 18, the inspector general records carried from the September 6 story and the coverage saved for this story through that date contain no independent review of the whistleblower allegations that the office said on September 8 it planned to conduct.
• Which five states Sauer meant by the week of September 13 in the September 6 application. The application does not name them.⁸
  • 8The government's September 6 request to pause the September 4 injunctionBallots have already begun to be mailed in North Carolina

Sources

The records

Everything this page rests on, numbered where the story cites it. We keep a dated copy of each one.

Primary documents

1. 1Supreme Court order refusing the government's request, with Kavanaugh concurring and Alito dissenting · Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-09-14 · the unsigned denial, Kavanaugh concurrence, and Alito dissent
2. 2Supreme Court docket for the government's request, as of the refusal · Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-09-14 · the September 14 docket entry for the denial
3. 3First Circuit order denying stays of the September 4 injunction · U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 2026-09-10 · the First Circuit stay denial
4. 4Memorandum opinion granting a preliminary injunction in DSCC v. Trump · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2026-09-13 · the D.C. injunction of the same rule
5. 5Memorandum and order granting a preliminary injunction · U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 2026-09-04 · the September 4 injunction the Court left in place
6. 6Postal Service final rule, Ballot Mail for Federal Elections · United States Postal Service, 2026-08-26 · the rule the injunction names
7. 7Executive Order 14399 · Executive Office of the President, 2026-03-31 · the March order behind the rulemaking
8. 8The government's September 6 request to pause the September 4 injunction · U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, 2026-09-06 · North Carolina mailing and the stay request
9. 9Supreme Court opinion of August 24 pausing the block of the executive order · Supreme Court of the United States, 2026-08-24 · the August 24 stay of the executive-order injunction
10. 10California respondents' opposition to the government's request · State of California, 2026-09-09 · the states opposition brief
11. 11League of Women Voters respondents' opposition to the government's request · League of Women Voters of Massachusetts et al., 2026-09-09 · Plaintiff States anticipate mailing over 50 million ballots
12. 12The government's reply in support of its request · U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, 2026-09-10 · the government's claim that the rule makes fraud harder to commit and easier to catch
13. 13The Postal Service's supplemental brief of September 14, attaching Nichols's order · U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, 2026-09-14 · Nichols's injunction of implementing and enforcing the Final Rule, filed with the Court on September 14
14. 14California letter notifying the Court of the First Circuit stay denial · State of California, 2026-09-10 · California's letter telling the Court of the First Circuit order; the order itself is cited instead
15. 15League of Women Voters letter on the First Circuit stay denial · League of Women Voters of Massachusetts et al., 2026-09-10 · the League of Women Voters letter telling the Court of the First Circuit order; the order itself is cited instead
16. 16Amicus brief of current and former election officials · Current and Former Election Officials, 2026-09-09 · election officials on mistakes, delays, and confusion
17. 17Bonta statement on the First Circuit stay denial · California Department of Justice, 2026-09-10 · California attorney general's statement on the First Circuit order, read; it speaks to the appeal, and the page cites the order
18. 18Privacy Act notice for the portal's records, USPS 820.225 Federal Ballot Mail · United States Postal Service, 2026-07-17 · law-enforcement purpose and five-year retention of portal records
19. 19Whistleblower Aid's brief opposing the pause · Whistleblower Aid, 2026-09-08 · the zero percent failure allegation
20. 20Brief of the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence and other groups · filed at the Supreme Court, 2026-09-10 · 45 states with address confidentiality programs and at least 150,000 confidential Colorado voters
21. 21Talwani's August 25 order finding a violation of the August 11 injunction · U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 2026-08-25 · the finding that the defendants violated the preliminary injunction by completing the rule

Official data

22. 222 U.S.C. 7, election day · Office of the Law Revision Counsel, 2026-09-08 · federal election day
23. 2339 U.S.C. 401, general powers of the Postal Service · Legal Information Institute, 2026-09-18 · the Postal Service rulemaking statute Kavanaugh cites, read; the page quotes his paragraph instead
24. 245 U.S.C. 706, scope of review · Legal Information Institute, 2026-09-18 · the Administrative Procedure Act review section Kavanaugh cites, read; the page quotes his paragraph instead
25. 25Privacy Act response to comments on USPS 820.225 · United States Postal Service, 2026-09-01 · the September 1 Privacy Act notice making the portal's records system effective, read; no court step on the page turns on it
26. 26Statement from Postmaster General David Steiner · United States Postal Service, 2026-09-04 · the denial that testing and validation have been continuous
27. 27Postal Service statement on development of the Federal Ballot Mail Portal · United States Postal Service, 2026-09-01 · the September 1 line that the portal was still being finalized
28. 28Postal Service election-mail page, as it read on September 18 · United States Postal Service, 2026-09-18 · the alert that the Postal Service is not enforcing the federal ballot mail rule for 2026
29. 29Inspector general audit of 2026 primary-election mail · U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General, 2026-09-04 · on-time processing scores and recommendations on postmarking and operational changes

Coverage checked

30. 30WIRED on the denial · WIRED, 2026-09-14 · 7-2 count and Kavanaugh-Jackson concurrence claim
31. 31Washington Examiner on the denial · Washington Examiner, 2026-09-14 · claim the Court decided in the administration favor
32. 32BBC News on the denial · BBC News, 2026-09-15 · Trump order and Hail Mary mislabel, local-official interviews
33. 33ABC News on the denial · ABC News, 2026-09-14 · dropped in in the Kavanaugh quote
34. 34CNBC on Trump reaction · CNBC, 2026-09-15 · implied 7-2 vote and Trump posts
35. 35SCOTUSblog on the denial · SCOTUSblog, 2026-09-14 · the unsigned order summary
36. 36CBS News on the denial · CBS News, 2026-09-14 · the denial quote
37. 37Politico on the denial · Politico, 2026-09-14 · the denial and Nichols
38. 38Associated Press on Trump reaction · Associated Press, 2026-09-15 · Trump reaction
39. 39CNBC on the denial · CNBC, 2026-09-14 · Monday denial quote
40. 40NPR on what the decision means for voters · NPR, 2026-09-15 · election-official reaction interview
41. 41Roll Call on the denial · Roll Call, 2026-09-14 · one-paragraph order summary
42. 42Associated Press interview with Postmaster General David Steiner · Associated Press, 2026-09-17 · work on the portal has stopped; the employee memo on not enforcing the rules in 2026; postmark-delay concerns in Washington and Oregon
43. 43Democracy Docket on the inspector general's planned review · Democracy Docket, 2026-09-08 · the inspector general's September 8 statement that it plans an independent review, quoted

How we check.

Since the previous story

Read the previous story

Days from the injunction to November 3: 60 days previously; 60 days in this story. elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026

Days from the injunction to November 3: 60 days previously; 60 days in this story. elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026

Election jurisdictions Talwani said the rule would reach: 10,000 jurisdictions previously; 10,000 jurisdictions in this story. the Final Rule would require 10,000 different election jurisdictions

Election jurisdictions Talwani said the rule would reach: 10,000 jurisdictions previously; 10,000 jurisdictions in this story. the Final Rule would require 10,000 different election jurisdictions

Days from the denial to November 3: first tracked in this story. elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026

Days from the injunction to the denial: first tracked in this story. September 14, 2026

Days from the First Circuit denial to the Court denial: first tracked in this story. September 14, 2026

Days from the Nichols injunction to the Court denial: first tracked in this story. September 14, 2026

Plaintiff states' anticipated mailings through Election Day: first tracked in this story. Plaintiff States anticipate mailing over 50

Postal Service 2022 ballot pieces delivered to and from voters: first tracked in this story. 54.4 million

2022 mail ballots transmitted to non-UOCAVA voters, as Nichols cites the survey: first tracked in this story. approximately 61 million

2022 mail ballots returned, as Nichols cites the survey: first tracked in this story. 36.6 million of those ballots were returned

States with an address confidentiality program, plus the District of Columbia: first tracked in this story. 45 states and the District of Columbia have some type of ACP

Confidential Colorado voters the domestic-violence brief names: first tracked in this story. 150,000 eligible but confidential Colorado voters

Years the Postal Service says it keeps portal records: first tracked in this story. Records are retained for 5 years.

Lower end of on-time processing scores in the September 4 primary-mail audit: first tracked in this story. 97.75 to 98.99 percent

Upper end of on-time processing scores in the September 4 primary-mail audit: first tracked in this story. 97.75 to 98.99 percent

Recommendations in the September 4 primary-mail audit: first tracked in this story. We made 11 recommendations

Ruling vote: first tracked in this story. on Sept. 14, when the court, in a 7-2 decision, blocked the president's plan to use the U.S. Postal Service to restrict mail-voting.

Dissenting justices: first tracked in this story. The two dissenters were Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett each siding against the Trump administration.

Sources

• USA Today · October 1, 2026 · Trump says he regrets nominating Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett to SCOTUS
• NBC News · October 9, 2026 · Early vote analysis: Mail ballot concerns are changing how Democrats vote
• The Hill · October 1, 2026 · Trump says he regrets nominating Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett
• NBC News · October 2, 2026 · Trump clashes ahead as new Supreme Court term begins
• Supreme Court of the United States · September 14, 2026 · Order denying application 26A305, with Kavanaugh concurrence and Alito dissent
• United States Postal Service · July 17, 2026 · Privacy Act system of records notice, USPS 820.225 Federal Ballot Mail
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · September 10, 2026 · First Circuit order denying stays of the September 4 injunction
• DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence et al., filed at the Supreme Court · September 10, 2026 · Brief amici curiae of DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, et al., No. 26A305
• League of Women Voters of Massachusetts et al. · September 9, 2026 · League of Women Voters respondents opposition to 26A305
• U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts · September 4, 2026 · Memorandum and order granting a preliminary injunction
• U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · September 13, 2026 · Memorandum opinion granting a preliminary injunction in DSCC v. Trump
• United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General · September 8, 2026 · Processing of Election and Political Mail for the 2026 Primary Elections, report 26-054-R26