Record · the original document behind a story
Memorandum and order granting a preliminary injunction
Published by U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on September 4, 2026.
Passages cited in the stories above
… Ballot Mail Envelope Standards and USPS review mandatory; c. DMM Section 705.24.4.1, to the extent that the section makes Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal registration mandatory for Ballot Mail; d. DMM Section 705.24.4.2, to the extent that the section makes voter enrollment in the Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal mandatory for Ballot Mail; e. DMM Section 705.24.5.1; f. The first two sentences of DMM Section 705.24.5.2; and g. DMM Section 705.24.5.3(a), (b), (c). (2) Defendants’ counsel must, within 24 hours after receiving service of this Order: (i) provide written notice of this Order to the USPS Defendants and their employees; (ii) notify all such recipients that they are required to comply with this Order, under …
… fraudulent mail voting to support the rushed implementation of the Final Rule. 62 The court finds moreover that enjoining the Final Rule’s mandatory provisions cannot harm the USPS or any State where “there is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action[.]” Rhode Island v. Trump, 155 F.4th 35, 50 (1st Cir. 2025); see also Monteith Decl. ¶ 3 [Doc. No. 280-1] (asserting that the Portal is not currently operational). At the same time, the court has not and will not order injunctive relief that precludes States from voluntarily complying with the Final Rule, consistent with their state laws. See Mem. & Order 10–11 [Doc. No. 218]. The court also will not preliminarily enjoin implementation of the Final Rule for elections after the November 2026 election, where the Final Rule imposes no irreparable harm as to later elections and judicial challenges may be addressed in the normal course. In sum, for the above-stated reasons, the court grants Plaintiff States’ and Plaintiff …
… c. DMM Section 705.24.4.1, to the extent that the section makes Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal registration mandatory for Ballot Mail; d. DMM Section 705.24.4.2, to the extent that the section makes voter enrollment in the Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal mandatory for Ballot Mail; e. DMM Section 705.24.5.1; f. The first two sentences of DMM Section 705.24.5.2; and g. DMM Section 705.24.5.3(a), (b), (c). (2) Defendants’ counsel must, within 24 hours after receiving service of this Order: (i) provide written notice of this Order to the USPS Defendants and their employees; (ii) notify all such recipients that they are required to comply with this Order, under penalty of contempt; and (iii) file on the docket by the next business day a copy of the notice and/or communications referred to in (i)–(ii). …
… balance between federal and state power.” United States Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Preservation Assn., 590 U.S. 604, 621–22 (2020). 29 Case 1:26-cv-11549-IT Document 285 Filed 09/04/26 Page 30 of 49 enumerated powers under Article I; the USPS’s authority under Title 39 is strictly limited to Congress’s express Postal Clause delegation. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 7. In sum, Title 39 does not permit the “sweeping delegation” USPS claims here, and the court finds Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that the Final Rule is ultra vires where it regulates elections beyond the bounds of the USPS’s delegated authority. 3. The Final Rule Violates Title 39 In addition to the constitutional and statutory issues, the Final Rule is inconsistent with the USPS’s governing statute, specifically Congress’s scheme to define categories of “nonmailable” material. 35 As a starting point, the USPS’s “right to exclude letters, or to refuse to permit their delivery to persons addressed, must depend upon some law of Congress, and if no …
… MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION September 4, 2026 Case 1:26-cv-11549-IT Document 285 Filed 09/04/26 Page 2 of 49 TALWANI, D.J. Pending before the court are two motions for preliminary injunctive relief 1 joined for briefing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(1). 2 For the reasons stated below, the court GRANTS a preliminary injunction prohibiting the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) from implementing mandatory sections of its final rule, Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 54966 (Aug. 26, 2026) (to be codified at 39 C.F.R. pt. 111) (the “Final Rule”), for the November 3, 2026 midterm elections. I. Background A. Procedural Background The winding procedural history of this litigation is as follows. 1. The EO This past spring, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14399, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 17125 (Mar. 31, 2026) (the “EO”). The EO asserted “an unavoidable duty under Article II of the Constitution of the …
… Plaintiff States 12 promptly challenged the Final Rule in a new action against the USPS Defendants, and Plaintiff Organizations promptly supplemented their complaint to add allegations regarding the Final Rule. Both moved for preliminary relief as to the USPS Defendants. The court joined the motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(1) and set a briefing and hearing schedule. Order [Doc. No. 212]. On August 27, 2026, the court granted a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), enjoining USPS from implementing mandatory sections of the Final Rule for fourteen days. Mem. & Order 10–11 [Doc. No. 218]. On September 3, 2026, the court held a hearing on the pending motions. B. Federal Election Law 1. Constitutional Framework a. The Role of States and Congress as to the Time, Place, and Manner of Federal Elections The Elections Clause of the Constitution provides: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and …
… 44 Case 1:26-cv-11549-IT Document 285 Filed 09/04/26 Page 45 of 49 (typically ranging from four to sixteen weeks in lead time), id. ¶ 86, and then, contingent on technological capabilities, collate and submit voter information to a portal that does not yet exist and has not been proven to work, id. ¶¶ 94, 97; see Monteith Decl. ¶ 3 [Doc. No. 280-1]. Having considered this series of hurdles for officials against the backdrop of an impending election, and mindful of the fact that any minor malfunction will result in the denial of mail ballots, the court concludes that disenfranchisement for Plaintiff Organizations’ members, regardless of residence, is practically inevitable. D. Balance and the Public Defendants claim irreparable harm where injunctive relief would “thwart the Postal Service” from implementing a regulation that USPS concluded had significant “visibility and law enforcement benefits[.]” Defs.’ Opp’n 21 [Doc. No. 235]. Intervenor-Defendants assert that they are irreparably harmed by injunctive relief that precludes their desired compliance with the Final …
… § 3001(d) (making nonmailable matter that “reasonably could be interpreted” as an invoice but is actually “a solicitation” for the order of goods or services, “unless such matter bears on its face, in conspicuous and legible type,” a specific notice) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the court sees no distinction between the USPS’s refusal to accept noncompliant mail ballots and other conditionally nonmailable materials. By establishing a new category of nonmailable materials, i.e. federal election mail, the court finds Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that the Final Rule is contrary to law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C). In sum, the court finds that Plaintiff States and Organizations are also likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the USPS exceeded its statutory authority by promulgating the Final Rule because the Constitution reserves election regulation to Congress and the States, Congress has not authorized the USPS to make requirements of States before permitting use of the USPS for mailing their ballots, and that the Final Rule impermissibly establishes a new …
… c. DMM Section 705.24.4.1, to the extent that the section makes Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal registration mandatory for Ballot Mail; d. DMM Section 705.24.4.2, to the extent that the section makes voter enrollment in the Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal mandatory for Ballot Mail; e. DMM Section 705.24.5.1; f. The first two sentences of DMM Section 705.24.5.2; and g. DMM Section 705.24.5.3(a), (b), (c). (2) Defendants’ counsel must, within 24 hours after receiving service of this Order: (i) provide written notice of this Order to the USPS Defendants and their employees; (ii) notify all such recipients that they are required to comply with this Order, under penalty of contempt; and (iii) file on the docket by the next business day a copy of the …
… not implement in any way and may not take any further preparatory steps to implement: a. DMM Section 705.24.3.1, to the extent that the section makes Outbound Ballot Mail Envelope Standards and USPS review mandatory; b. DMM Section 705.24.3.2, to the extent that the section makes Return Federal Ballot Mail Envelope Standards and USPS review mandatory; c. DMM Section 705.24.4.1, to the extent that the section makes Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal registration mandatory for Ballot Mail; d. DMM Section 705.24.4.2, to the extent that the section makes voter enrollment in the Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal mandatory for Ballot Mail; e. DMM Section 705.24.5.1; f. The first two sentences of DMM Section 705.24.5.2; and g. DMM Section 705.24.5.3(a), (b), (c). (2) Defendants’ counsel must, within 24 hours after receiving service of this Order: …
… stay, have not shown that a stay will not substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding, and have not shown that a stay would be in the public interest. Accordingly, the request for a stay pending appeal is DENIED. V. Order For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motions 63 for a preliminary injunction are GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) as follows. (1) The court stays and preliminarily enjoins the implementation or enforcement of the following sections of the Final Rule as to elections occurring before or on November 3, 63 Mot. for a TRO, Emergency Stay, and Expedited Prelim. Inj. and Stay, California II, No. 1:26- cv-13917 [Doc. No. 3]; Emergency Mot. for TRO and Prelim. Inj., LVWM, No. 1:26-cv-11549 [Doc. No. 206]. 47 Case 1:26-cv-11549-IT Document 285 Filed 09/04/26 Page 48 of 49 2026. For elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026, USPS Defendants 64 may …
… Federal Ballot Mail Portal registration mandatory for Ballot Mail; d. DMM Section 705.24.4.2, to the extent that the section makes voter enrollment in the Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal mandatory for Ballot Mail; e. DMM Section 705.24.5.1; f. The first two sentences of DMM Section 705.24.5.2; and g. DMM Section 705.24.5.3(a), (b), (c). (2) Defendants’ counsel must, within 24 hours after receiving service of this Order: (i) provide written notice of this Order to the USPS Defendants and their employees; (ii) notify all such recipients that they are required to comply with this Order, under penalty of contempt; and (iii) file on the docket by the next business day a copy of the notice and/or communications referred to in (i)–(ii). 64 USPS Defendants are the USPS, the Postmaster General, the Deputy Postmaster General, and the members and Chair of the USPS Board of Governors. See Compl., California II, No. 1:26-cv- 13917 [Doc. No. 1]; Compl., Suppl. Compl., LWVM, No. 1:26-cv-11549 [Doc. Nos. 1, 205]. 48 Case 1:26-cv-11549-IT Document 285 Filed 09/04/26 Page 49 of 49 …
… Case 1:26-cv-11549-IT Document 285 Filed 09/04/26 Page 48 of 49 2026. For elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026, USPS Defendants 64 may not implement in any way and may not take any further preparatory steps to implement: a. DMM Section 705.24.3.1, to the extent that the section makes Outbound Ballot Mail Envelope Standards and USPS review mandatory; b. DMM Section 705.24.3.2, to the extent that the section makes Return Federal Ballot Mail Envelope Standards and USPS review mandatory; c. DMM Section 705.24.4.1, to the extent that the section makes Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal registration mandatory for Ballot Mail; d. DMM Section 705.24.4.2, to the extent that the section makes voter enrollment in the Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal mandatory for Ballot Mail; e. DMM Section 705.24.5.1; …
… Mail Envelope Standards and USPS review mandatory; b. DMM Section 705.24.3.2, to the extent that the section makes Return Federal Ballot Mail Envelope Standards and USPS review mandatory; c. DMM Section 705.24.4.1, to the extent that the section makes Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal registration mandatory for Ballot Mail; d. DMM Section 705.24.4.2, to the extent that the section makes voter enrollment in the Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal mandatory for Ballot Mail; e. DMM Section 705.24.5.1; f. The first two sentences of DMM Section 705.24.5.2; and g. DMM Section 705.24.5.3(a), (b), (c). (2) Defendants’ counsel must, within 24 hours after receiving service of this Order: (i) provide written notice of this Order to the USPS Defendants and their employees; (ii) notify all such recipients that they are required to comply with this Order, under …
… Congress’s statutory scheme, and is unconstitutional where it intrudes not only on Congress’s Elections Clause powers but also that power left to the States. Watson, 146 S. Ct. at 2181 27 Case 1:26-cv-11549-IT Document 285 Filed 09/04/26 Page 28 of 49 (“[S]tate law is preempted by federal statute only so far as the conflict extends.”) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the court finds Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that the Final Rule is an election rule where it purports to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections and is unconstitutional where Congress has not authorized such a rule under the Elections Clause. 2. The Final Rule is Also Ultra Vires Where the USPS Enacted the Final Rule With No Statutory Authorization Separately, the Final Rule is also ultra vires where the USPS has acted beyond any statutory authority. 32 “Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided.” Nat’l Fed. of Indep. Bus. v. OSHA, 595 U.S. 109, 117 …
… respect to the November 3, 2026 or any earlier federal election, including refusing to transmit mail-in or absentee ballots; or otherwise initiating or completing rulemaking to promulgate the specific regulations outlined in Section 3(b)(i)(v) or (d) of the EO for the November 3, 2026 or any earlier election. Mem. & Order 27 [Doc. No. 183]. 7. USPS’s Final Rule Despite this court’s injunction, on Friday, August 21, 2026, at or around 9:00 p.m., the USPS issued a final rule implementing Section 3 of the Executive Order. See USPS, Ballot Mail for Federal Elections (Aug. 21, 2026) (accessible at https://public- 6 Case 1:26-cv-11549-IT Document 285 Filed 09/04/26 Page 7 of 49 inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-17238.pdf). 10 The USPS reported that it had received over 200,000 comments from citizens; postal unions; federal, state, local, and tribal officials; election …
… Reg. at 54966–82. In answering comments, the agency responded to issues related to the USPS’s legal authority to issue the rule, the election integrity policy justification, various constitutional and statutory concerns, and operation concerns. Id. “[T]o help achieve the goals articulated by the [EO],” id. at 54976, the Final Rule imposes conditions States must meet in order to use the USPS to deliver mail ballots, id. at 54990–92. The Final Rule mandates that: (1) ballot envelopes and return envelopes must comply with certain ballot envelope design requirements, 91 Fed. Reg. at 54990–91 (DMM 705.24.3.1, 705.24.3.2); (2) State or local election officials must submit their ballot envelope and return envelope designs to the USPS for approval, id.; and (3) after obtaining approval of the ballot envelope and return envelope designs, State or local election officials must input each voter’s information into a USPS-run electronic portal, id. at 54991 (DMM 705.24.4.2). The Final Rule precludes election officials from uploading voter information until the USPS approves the ballot envelopes and return ballot envelopes. Id. at 54991 (DMM 705.24.4.2(f)). And where a State or local election official does not obtain envelope and return envelope design approval, or does not upload voter information, or does not include unique 10 The final rule was published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2026, but has been effective …
… Despite this court’s injunction, on Friday, August 21, 2026, at or around 9:00 p.m., the USPS issued a final rule implementing Section 3 of the Executive Order. See USPS, Ballot Mail for Federal Elections (Aug. 21, 2026) (accessible at https://public- 6 Case 1:26-cv-11549-IT Document 285 Filed 09/04/26 Page 7 of 49 inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-17238.pdf). 10 The USPS reported that it had received over 200,000 comments from citizens; postal unions; federal, state, local, and tribal officials; election officials; voting rights organizations; and other issue-based and political advocacy groups. Fed. Reg. at 54966–82. In answering comments, the agency responded to issues related to the USPS’s legal authority to issue the rule, the election integrity policy justification, various constitutional and statutory concerns, and operation concerns. Id. “[T]o help achieve the goals articulated by the [EO],” id. at 54976, the Final Rule imposes conditions States must meet in order to use the USPS to deliver mail ballots, id. at 54990–92. …
… factors[.]” Id. at 435. For the reasons discussed above, the court finds that Defendants have not made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits, have shown no irreparable injury absent a stay, have not shown that a stay will not substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding, and have not shown that a stay would be in the public interest. Accordingly, the request for a stay pending appeal is DENIED. V. Order For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motions 63 for a preliminary injunction are GRANTED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) as follows. (1) The court stays and preliminarily enjoins the implementation or enforcement of the following sections of the Final Rule as to elections occurring before or on November 3, 63 Mot. for a TRO, Emergency Stay, and Expedited Prelim. Inj. and Stay, California II, No. 1:26- …
… cv-13917 [Doc. No. 3]; Emergency Mot. for TRO and Prelim. Inj., LVWM, No. 1:26-cv-11549 [Doc. No. 206]. 47 Case 1:26-cv-11549-IT Document 285 Filed 09/04/26 Page 48 of 49 2026. For elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026, USPS Defendants 64 may not implement in any way and may not take any further preparatory steps to implement: a. DMM Section 705.24.3.1, to the extent that the section makes Outbound Ballot Mail Envelope Standards and USPS review mandatory; b. DMM Section 705.24.3.2, to the extent that the section makes Return Federal Ballot Mail Envelope Standards and USPS review mandatory; c. DMM Section 705.24.4.1, to the extent that the section makes Postal Service Federal Ballot Mail Portal registration mandatory for Ballot Mail; d. DMM Section 705.24.4.2, to the extent that the section makes voter enrollment in …
… In light of the extraordinarily condensed timeframe, the approval process, and the absence of an appeals or escalation process support Plaintiff States’ claims of irreparable harm. c. Portal Enrollment State election officials are also deeply concerned with the Final Rule’s requirement that, after ballot approval, all absentee voters’ information must be uploaded to the USPS portal. 48 The Portal is not currently operational and the USPS plans to make the Portal available “sometime next week.” See Monteith Decl. ¶ 3 [Doc. No. 280-1]. As a preliminary matter, some States forbid the disclosure of voter information in certain instances, for example under confidentiality laws protecting victims of domestic abuse or intimate partner violence. 49 Contrary to Defendants’ 48 See, e.g., Stavisky Decl. ¶ 28, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-17] (“But even if USPS’s untested Ballot Portal works as intended and does not experience technical problems— …
… USPS Defendants are the USPS, the Postmaster General, the Deputy Postmaster General, and the members and Chair of the USPS Board of Governors. See Compl., California II, No. 1:26-cv- 13917 [Doc. No. 1]; Compl., Suppl. Compl., LWVM, No. 1:26-cv-11549 [Doc. Nos. 1, 205]. 48 Case 1:26-cv-11549-IT Document 285 Filed 09/04/26 Page 49 of 49 (3) The Temporary Restraining Order 65 entered by the court on August 27, 2026, is hereby dissolved. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 4, 2026 /s/ Indira Talwani United States District Judge 65 Order, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 31]; Order, LVWM, No. 1:26-cv-11549 [Doc. No. 218]. 49
… motions to dismiss in both cases, see Intervenors’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 124]; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 126], and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on prudential ripeness grounds, Plaintiff Organizations’ and Plaintiff States’ claims with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026. Mem. & Order 17 [Doc. No. 166]. The court denied dismissal in both cases on prudential ripeness grounds with regard to elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026. Id. b. Proceedings in California I On June 25, 2026, in California I, the court denied the remainder of Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ motions to dismiss the States’ complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States. See California I, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 1:26-cv-11581, 2026 WL 1826490 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026). The court entered final judgment on July 7, 2026, enjoining …
… motions to dismiss in both cases, see Intervenors’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 124]; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 126], and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on prudential ripeness grounds, Plaintiff Organizations’ and Plaintiff States’ claims with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026. Mem. & Order 17 [Doc. No. 166]. The court denied dismissal in both cases on prudential ripeness grounds with regard to elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026. Id. b. Proceedings in California I On June 25, 2026, in California I, the court denied the remainder of Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ motions to dismiss the States’ complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States. See California I, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 1:26-cv-11581, 2026 WL 1826490 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026). The court entered final judgment on July 7, 2026, enjoining …
… feature of New York’s voting system in 2022.”); Brunton Decl. ¶ 14, California II, No. 1:26-cv- 13917 [Doc. No. 4-18] (“Based on the number of mail ballot requests submitted for the 2022 general election, North Carolina anticipates mailing ballots starting September 4, 2026, to approximately 260,000 eligible voters during the 2026 general election.”); Dawson Decl. ¶ 20, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-19] (“Oregon anticipates mailing ballots to approximately 3 million voters during the 2026 general election, typically during the period from October 14, 2026 (20 days before the election) to October 20, 2026 (14 days before the election). [Or. Rev. Stat. §] 254.470(2)(a). Ballots will be mailed to UOCAVA voters not later than September 19, 2026 (45 days before the election) and to absentee voters starting on October 5, 2026 (29 days before the election). [Or. Rev. Stat. §] 253.065(1)”); Marks Decl. ¶ 20, California …
… approximately 260,000 eligible voters during the 2026 general election.”); Dawson Decl. ¶ 20, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-19] (“Oregon anticipates mailing ballots to approximately 3 million voters during the 2026 general election, typically during the period from October 14, 2026 (20 days before the election) to October 20, 2026 (14 days before the election). [Or. Rev. Stat. §] 254.470(2)(a). Ballots will be mailed to UOCAVA voters not later than September 19, 2026 (45 days before the election) and to absentee voters starting on October 5, 2026 (29 days before the election). [Or. Rev. Stat. §] 253.065(1)”); Marks Decl. ¶ 20, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-20] (“Pennsylvania anticipates that 2026 mail ballot requests will be comparable to the requests submitted in the 2024 presidential election, when nearly 2.2 million (23 percent) of all registered voters requested a mail ballot.”); Rock Decl. ¶ 23, …
… motions to dismiss in both cases, see Intervenors’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 124]; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 126], and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on prudential ripeness grounds, Plaintiff Organizations’ and Plaintiff States’ claims with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026. Mem. & Order 17 [Doc. No. 166]. The court denied dismissal in both cases on prudential ripeness grounds with regard to elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026. Id. b. Proceedings in California I On June 25, 2026, in California I, the court denied the remainder of Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ motions to dismiss the States’ complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States. See California I, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 1:26-cv-11581, 2026 WL 1826490 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026). The court entered final judgment on July 7, 2026, enjoining …
… Election.” Patrick Decl. ¶ 18 [Doc. No. 264-1]. 61 The budgets for election administration have already been set, id. ¶ 34, State election training and procedures have largely already been finalized, id. ¶ 33, and States typically stagger the types of changes mandated by the Final Rule (like ballot redesign) across odd-numbered years off cycle from federal elections, to allow sufficient time for proper implementation, id. ¶ 85. Now, 60 days before the November 3, 2026 midterms, the Final Rule would require 10,000 different election jurisdictions to conform to new ballot design requirements (requiring many to re-design their ballots), have a wave of new designs undergo Mail Design Analyst review, id. ¶ 79, print new designs from their vendors 60 Millis Decl. ¶ 26 [Doc. No. 100-1] (Wisconsin Election Commission Chair states “it would be virtually impossible to ensure that each absentee voter in Wisconsin is enrolled [in the USPS Portal].”). …
… motions to dismiss in both cases, see Intervenors’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 124]; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 126], and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on prudential ripeness grounds, Plaintiff Organizations’ and Plaintiff States’ claims with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026. Mem. & Order 17 [Doc. No. 166]. The court denied dismissal in both cases on prudential ripeness grounds with regard to elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026. Id. b. Proceedings in California I On June 25, 2026, in California I, the court denied the remainder of Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ motions to dismiss the States’ complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States. See California I, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 1:26-cv-11581, 2026 WL 1826490 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026). The court entered final judgment on July 7, 2026, enjoining …
… motions to dismiss in both cases, see Intervenors’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 124]; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 126], and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on prudential ripeness grounds, Plaintiff Organizations’ and Plaintiff States’ claims with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026. Mem. & Order 17 [Doc. No. 166]. The court denied dismissal in both cases on prudential ripeness grounds with regard to elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026. Id. b. Proceedings in California I On June 25, 2026, in California I, the court denied the remainder of Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ motions to dismiss the States’ complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States. See California I, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 1:26-cv-11581, 2026 WL 1826490 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026). The court entered final judgment on July 7, 2026, enjoining …
… approximately 260,000 eligible voters during the 2026 general election.”); Dawson Decl. ¶ 20, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-19] (“Oregon anticipates mailing ballots to approximately 3 million voters during the 2026 general election, typically during the period from October 14, 2026 (20 days before the election) to October 20, 2026 (14 days before the election). [Or. Rev. Stat. §] 254.470(2)(a). Ballots will be mailed to UOCAVA voters not later than September 19, 2026 (45 days before the election) and to absentee voters starting on October 5, 2026 (29 days before the election). [Or. Rev. Stat. §] 253.065(1)”); Marks Decl. ¶ 20, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-20] (“Pennsylvania anticipates that 2026 mail ballot requests will be comparable to the requests submitted in the 2024 presidential election, when nearly 2.2 million (23 percent) of all registered voters requested a mail ballot.”); Rock Decl. ¶ 23, …
… motions to dismiss in both cases, see Intervenors’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 124]; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 126], and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on prudential ripeness grounds, Plaintiff Organizations’ and Plaintiff States’ claims with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026. Mem. & Order 17 [Doc. No. 166]. The court denied dismissal in both cases on prudential ripeness grounds with regard to elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026. Id. b. Proceedings in California I On June 25, 2026, in California I, the court denied the remainder of Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ motions to dismiss the States’ complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States. See California I, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 1:26-cv-11581, 2026 WL 1826490 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026). The court entered final judgment on July 7, 2026, enjoining …
… Plaintiff States are required under state law to mail millions of ballots to voters on a prescribed timeframe. 37 As detailed below, they are unable to pivot this late in the election cycle, nearly 37 Southard Decl. ¶ 37, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-1] (“Pursuant to California law, California election officials must ensure that mail ballots are sent to all active registered voters in the state. Therefore, we anticipate that county election officials will mail more than 23 million ballots to voters during the November 2026 General Election.”); Tassinari Decl. ¶ 28, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-2] (“Massachusetts anticipates mailing ballots to approximately 1 million voters during the 2026 general election beginning in mid-September.”); Wlaschin Decl. ¶ 36, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-3] (Nevada “anticipates county election officials mailing approximately 2.1 million ballots to voters during the 2026 …
… motions to dismiss in both cases, see Intervenors’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 124]; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 126], and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on prudential ripeness grounds, Plaintiff Organizations’ and Plaintiff States’ claims with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026. Mem. & Order 17 [Doc. No. 166]. The court denied dismissal in both cases on prudential ripeness grounds with regard to elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026. Id. b. Proceedings in California I On June 25, 2026, in California I, the court denied the remainder of Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ motions to dismiss the States’ complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States. See California I, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 1:26-cv-11581, 2026 WL 1826490 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026). The court entered final judgment on July 7, 2026, enjoining …
… motions to dismiss in both cases, see Intervenors’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 124]; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 126], and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on prudential ripeness grounds, Plaintiff Organizations’ and Plaintiff States’ claims with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026. Mem. & Order 17 [Doc. No. 166]. The court denied dismissal in both cases on prudential ripeness grounds with regard to elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026. Id. b. Proceedings in California I On June 25, 2026, in California I, the court denied the remainder of Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ motions to dismiss the States’ complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States. See California I, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 1:26-cv-11581, 2026 WL 1826490 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026). The court entered final judgment on July 7, 2026, enjoining …
… Plaintiff States are required under state law to mail millions of ballots to voters on a prescribed timeframe. 37 As detailed below, they are unable to pivot this late in the election cycle, nearly 37 Southard Decl. ¶ 37, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-1] (“Pursuant to California law, California election officials must ensure that mail ballots are sent to all active registered voters in the state. Therefore, we anticipate that county election officials will mail more than 23 million ballots to voters during the November 2026 General Election.”); Tassinari Decl. ¶ 28, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-2] (“Massachusetts anticipates mailing ballots to approximately 1 million voters during the 2026 general election beginning in mid-September.”); Wlaschin Decl. ¶ 36, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-3] (Nevada “anticipates county election officials mailing approximately 2.1 million ballots to voters during the 2026 …
… Election.” Patrick Decl. ¶ 18 [Doc. No. 264-1]. 61 The budgets for election administration have already been set, id. ¶ 34, State election training and procedures have largely already been finalized, id. ¶ 33, and States typically stagger the types of changes mandated by the Final Rule (like ballot redesign) across odd-numbered years off cycle from federal elections, to allow sufficient time for proper implementation, id. ¶ 85. Now, 60 days before the November 3, 2026 midterms, the Final Rule would require 10,000 different election jurisdictions to conform to new ballot design requirements (requiring many to re-design their ballots), have a wave of new designs undergo Mail Design Analyst review, id. ¶ 79, print new designs from their vendors 60 Millis Decl. ¶ 26 [Doc. No. 100-1] (Wisconsin Election Commission Chair states “it would be virtually impossible to ensure that each absentee voter in Wisconsin is enrolled [in the USPS Portal].”). …
… general election during the period from September 19, 2026, to October 27, 2026.”); Fontes Decl. ¶ 20, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-5] (“Arizona counties anticipate mailing ballots to approximately 3,200,000 voters during the 2026 General Election during the period from September 19, 2026 (for UOCAVA voters) to October 23, 2026, with the vast majority being mailed on or around October 7, 2026.”); Rudy Decl. ¶ 25, California II, No. 1:26- cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-6] (“Colorado anticipates mailing ballots to more than 4,000,000 voters during the 2026 general election during the period from September 19, 2026, to October 26, 2026.”); Rosenberg Decl. ¶ 25, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-7] (“Connecticut anticipates mailing ballots to approximately 175,000 to 200,000 voters during the 2026 general election during the period from October 2, 2026 to November 2, 2026.”); Albence Decl. ¶ 18, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-8] (“Delaware anticipates mailing ballots to …
… California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-2] (“Massachusetts anticipates mailing ballots to approximately 1 million voters during the 2026 general election beginning in mid-September.”); Wlaschin Decl. ¶ 36, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-3] (Nevada “anticipates county election officials mailing approximately 2.1 million ballots to voters during the 2026 general election.”); Holmes Decl. ¶ 10, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-4] (“Washington anticipates mailing ballots to approximately 5.1 million voters during the 2026 general election during the period from September 19, 2026, to October 27, 2026.”); Fontes Decl. ¶ 20, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-5] (“Arizona counties anticipate mailing ballots to approximately 3,200,000 voters during the 2026 General Election during the period from September 19, 2026 (for UOCAVA voters) to October 23, 2026, with the vast majority being mailed on or around October 7, 2026.”); Rudy Decl. ¶ 25, California II, No. 1:26- …
… motions to dismiss in both cases, see Intervenors’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 124]; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 126], and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on prudential ripeness grounds, Plaintiff Organizations’ and Plaintiff States’ claims with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026. Mem. & Order 17 [Doc. No. 166]. The court denied dismissal in both cases on prudential ripeness grounds with regard to elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026. Id. b. Proceedings in California I On June 25, 2026, in California I, the court denied the remainder of Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ motions to dismiss the States’ complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States. See California I, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 1:26-cv-11581, 2026 WL 1826490 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026). The court entered final judgment on July 7, 2026, enjoining …
… motions to dismiss in both cases, see Intervenors’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 124]; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 126], and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on prudential ripeness grounds, Plaintiff Organizations’ and Plaintiff States’ claims with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026. Mem. & Order 17 [Doc. No. 166]. The court denied dismissal in both cases on prudential ripeness grounds with regard to elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026. Id. b. Proceedings in California I On June 25, 2026, in California I, the court denied the remainder of Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ motions to dismiss the States’ complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States. See California I, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 1:26-cv-11581, 2026 WL 1826490 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026). The court entered final judgment on July 7, 2026, enjoining …
… California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-2] (“Massachusetts anticipates mailing ballots to approximately 1 million voters during the 2026 general election beginning in mid-September.”); Wlaschin Decl. ¶ 36, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-3] (Nevada “anticipates county election officials mailing approximately 2.1 million ballots to voters during the 2026 general election.”); Holmes Decl. ¶ 10, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-4] (“Washington anticipates mailing ballots to approximately 5.1 million voters during the 2026 general election during the period from September 19, 2026, to October 27, 2026.”); Fontes Decl. ¶ 20, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-5] (“Arizona counties anticipate mailing ballots to approximately 3,200,000 voters during the 2026 General Election during the period from September 19, 2026 (for UOCAVA voters) to October 23, 2026, with the vast majority being mailed on or around October 7, 2026.”); Rudy Decl. ¶ 25, California II, No. 1:26- …
… general election during the period from September 19, 2026, to October 27, 2026.”); Fontes Decl. ¶ 20, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-5] (“Arizona counties anticipate mailing ballots to approximately 3,200,000 voters during the 2026 General Election during the period from September 19, 2026 (for UOCAVA voters) to October 23, 2026, with the vast majority being mailed on or around October 7, 2026.”); Rudy Decl. ¶ 25, California II, No. 1:26- cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-6] (“Colorado anticipates mailing ballots to more than 4,000,000 voters during the 2026 general election during the period from September 19, 2026, to October 26, 2026.”); Rosenberg Decl. ¶ 25, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-7] (“Connecticut anticipates mailing ballots to approximately 175,000 to 200,000 voters during the 2026 general election during the period from October 2, 2026 to November 2, 2026.”); Albence Decl. ¶ 18, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-8] (“Delaware anticipates mailing ballots to …
… motions to dismiss in both cases, see Intervenors’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 124]; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 126], and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on prudential ripeness grounds, Plaintiff Organizations’ and Plaintiff States’ claims with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026. Mem. & Order 17 [Doc. No. 166]. The court denied dismissal in both cases on prudential ripeness grounds with regard to elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026. Id. b. Proceedings in California I On June 25, 2026, in California I, the court denied the remainder of Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ motions to dismiss the States’ complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States. See California I, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 1:26-cv-11581, 2026 WL 1826490 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026). The court entered final judgment on July 7, 2026, enjoining …
… motions to dismiss in both cases, see Intervenors’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 124]; Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 126], and dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on prudential ripeness grounds, Plaintiff Organizations’ and Plaintiff States’ claims with regard to elections occurring after November 3, 2026. Mem. & Order 17 [Doc. No. 166]. The court denied dismissal in both cases on prudential ripeness grounds with regard to elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026. Id. b. Proceedings in California I On June 25, 2026, in California I, the court denied the remainder of Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ motions to dismiss the States’ complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff States. See California I, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 1:26-cv-11581, 2026 WL 1826490 (D. Mass. June 25, 2026). The court entered final judgment on July 7, 2026, enjoining …
… feature of New York’s voting system in 2022.”); Brunton Decl. ¶ 14, California II, No. 1:26-cv- 13917 [Doc. No. 4-18] (“Based on the number of mail ballot requests submitted for the 2022 general election, North Carolina anticipates mailing ballots starting September 4, 2026, to approximately 260,000 eligible voters during the 2026 general election.”); Dawson Decl. ¶ 20, California II, No. 1:26-cv-13917 [Doc. No. 4-19] (“Oregon anticipates mailing ballots to approximately 3 million voters during the 2026 general election, typically during the period from October 14, 2026 (20 days before the election) to October 20, 2026 (14 days before the election). [Or. Rev. Stat. §] 254.470(2)(a). Ballots will be mailed to UOCAVA voters not later than September 19, 2026 (45 days before the election) and to absentee voters starting on October 5, 2026 (29 days before the election). [Or. Rev. Stat. §] 253.065(1)”); Marks Decl. ¶ 20, California …
Read the original · Open the copy we saved
Where we use it
- The document is the September 4, 2026 memorandum and order granting the preliminary injunction. · cited for the original record
About this saved copy
The fingerprint identifies the saved text used for this record. A different copy has a different fingerprint.
- Text fingerprint (SHA-256)
92542590981f5796ec159dcf310b8966719b6e0e76ef387fa877a04d5d1e9305