Skip to content
OpenDocket

Can the Postal Service gate mail ballots behind a new voter list?

DSCC v. TRUMP

Follow

At a glance

Democratic Party and voter groups challenge Trump's mail-voting order and the Postal Service rule it prompted. After calling the first challenge premature, the court blocked the rule for now in September.

  1. What happened · 5 steps
    1. Executive order, then lawsuitsMar 31 – Apr 1, 2026

      The President ordered new mail-ballot rules and federal citizenship lists; three groups of plaintiffs sued the next day.

    2. First injunction requests deniedMay 28, 2026

      The judge found the plaintiffs likely lacked standing and their claims were not yet ripe, since agencies had not acted.

    3. Appeals court affirms the denialJul 28, 2026

      The D.C. Circuit agreed the Democratic groups' challenge was likely premature, while noting serious questions about the order.

    4. Postal Service adopts ballot mail ruleAug 21, 2026

      The rule set new ballot envelope designs, required voter enrollment in a federal portal, and had postal staff check ballots.

    5. Ballot mail rule blocked for nowSep 13, 2026

      The judge found the Postal Service likely lacked power to issue key parts of the rule; the order's Section 3 was not enjoined.

  2. Ballot mail rule blocked for now

    The Postal Service may not carry out or enforce its August 2026 ballot mail rule while the case continues.

  3. Still open

    Motions to dismiss filed in May, and a request that the government report its steps to carry out the order, await rulings.

Where it stands

Motions to dismiss

Fully briefed since May 22; no ruling yet.

The Postal Service rule is blocked for now while the court considers whether to dismiss the case.

Follow what's happening

  1. Lawsuits filed

    Apr 1, 2026

    Three groups of plaintiffs sued over the mail-voting order.

  2. First injunction requests

    May 28, 2026

    Denied; likely premature before agencies acted.

  3. Appeal of the denial

    Jul 28, 2026

    Appeals court affirmed; claims likely not yet ripe

  4. Injunction against the rule

    Sep 13, 2026

    Ballot mail rule blocked; Section 3 of the order not enjoined.

  5. Motions to dismiss

    Not yet

    Fully briefed since May 22; no ruling yet.

The parties

DSCC, LULAC, NAACP, and other plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

Democratic Party groups, voter groups, and local officials

Wants

Stop the mail-ballot rule and citizenship lists

Key arguments

  • The Postal Service lacked power to issue the rule

    Likely to succeed. Interim ruling. Found likely for the portal and ballot checks; the court doubted envelope design alone exceeds postal power

  • The rule risks keeping mail ballots from voters

    Accepted for now. Interim ruling. Found as irreparable harm for the preliminary injunction

  • The order takes over states' and Congress's role

    Not reached; ruled premature. Interim ruling. Courts held the challenge to the order likely unripe before agencies acted

  • Citizenship lists would violate the Privacy Act

    Not reached; ruled premature. Interim ruling. The record did not yet show which databases, if any, would be used

Represented by

Elias Law Group; Campaign Legal Center; Democracy Defenders Fund; Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; NAACP

Trump administration and 12 intervening states

Defendants

Federal officials and agencies, joined by 12 states

Wants

Dismissal and no injunction against the rule

Key arguments

  • Challenges to the order came too early

    Accepted on first motions. Interim ruling. Before agencies acted; the court later reached the Postal Service rule once it was issued

  • The rule is a modest regulation of the mail

    Rejected for now. Interim ruling

  • Voters' and candidates' harms are speculative

    Rejected for now. Interim ruling. As to the rule, once issued; earlier claims against the order were found unripe

  • Any injunction should cover only ballot refusals

    Rejected for now. Interim ruling. The court enjoined the whole rule, finding its parts not severable

Represented by

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division; Missouri, Alabama, and other state attorneys general

Supporting plaintiffs: Society for the Rule of Law and Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and others and State and local election officials and experts and Bipartisan Former Governors (on appeal)

Supporting defendants: America's Future and Citizens United and Federation for American Immigration Reform

Content snapshot as of .