Skip to content
OpenDocket

Can the Postal Service set conditions for mailing election ballots?

State of California v. United States Postal Service

Follow

At a glance

Twenty-three states, D.C., and Pennsylvania's governor challenge a Postal Service rule that withholds ballots unless officials meet new envelope and voter-list steps. A judge blocked it for the November 3 election.

  1. What happened · 6 steps
    1. Postal Service adopts a ballot mail ruleAug. 21, 2026

      The rule says the Postal Service will not mail ballots unless officials meet new envelope, approval, and voter-upload steps.

    2. States sue to stop the ruleAug. 26, 2026

      Twenty-three states, D.C., and Pennsylvania's governor say only states and Congress can set such election rules.

    3. Judge pauses the rule for 14 daysAug. 27, 2026

      A temporary order stopped the Postal Service from enforcing the rule's mandatory parts for the November election.

    4. Judge blocks the rule for NovemberSep. 4, 2026

      A preliminary injunction blocks the mandatory parts through November 3, 2026, but states may still comply voluntarily.

    5. Appeals court leaves the block in placeSep. 10, 2026

      The First Circuit denied stays, agreeing the rule likely intrudes on the election powers of states and Congress.

    6. Supreme Court declines to pause the blockSep. 14, 2026

      The Court found the government unlikely to win and refused to pause the injunction; two justices dissented.

  2. Ballot mail rule blocked for Nov. 3 election

    The Postal Service may not enforce the rule's envelope and voter-upload requirements for elections through November 3, 2026.

  3. Still open

    Whether the rule is lawful in the end, and whether it can apply to elections after November 3, 2026, is undecided.

Where it stands

Appeal of the injunction

Appeals combined; appellants' opening briefs due Nov. 2, 2026 · Sep. 4, 2026

The injunction stands while the Postal Service and intervening states appeal it. The First Circuit combined the appeals and set the appellants' opening briefs for November 2, 2026. The trial court has not issued a final ruling on the claims, and the Postal Service's answer to the complaint is now due November 16, 2026.

Follow what's happening

  1. Lawsuit filed

    Aug. 26, 2026

    States challenge the Postal Service's new ballot mail rule

  2. Temporary order

    Aug. 27, 2026

    Rule's mandatory parts paused for 14 days

  3. Preliminary injunction

    Sep. 4, 2026

    Mandatory parts blocked through the November 3, 2026 election

  4. Stays denied on appeal

    Sep. 10, 2026

    First Circuit and Supreme Court both refused to pause it

  5. Appeal of the injunction

    Sep. 4, 2026

    Appeals combined; appellants' opening briefs due Nov. 2, 2026

The parties

California and other plaintiff states

Plaintiffs

23 states, D.C., and Pennsylvania's governor

Wants

Block the Postal Service's ballot mail rule

Key arguments

  • Only states and Congress set election rules

    Likely to succeed. Interim ruling. A preliminary finding; the First Circuit agreed when it denied a stay

  • No law lets the Postal Service regulate elections

    Likely to succeed. Interim ruling. A preliminary finding

  • The rule creates a new kind of unmailable mail

    Likely to succeed. Interim ruling. A preliminary finding; the First Circuit did not address this claim

  • States cannot comply before the November vote

    Court agreed for now. Interim ruling. Found as a basis for preliminary relief; a concurring Supreme Court justice relied on it

Represented by

Attorneys general of 23 states and D.C.; Counsel to Pennsylvania's governor

U.S. Postal Service

Defendants

The Postal Service and its leaders, plus 12 states

Wants

Let the ballot mail rule take effect now

Key arguments

  • It sets modest mail standards, not election rules

    Rejected for now. Interim ruling. A preliminary ruling; the First Circuit agreed when it denied a stay

  • Postal law authorizes rules for handling mail

    Rejected for now. Interim ruling. A preliminary ruling; one concurring Supreme Court justice saw a fair prospect the rule is authorized

  • Blocking the rule harms the government

    Rejected for now. Interim ruling. The court found no public interest in an unlawful rule

  • Some states can comply in time for November

    Rejected for now. Interim ruling. Missouri's declaration did not outweigh the plaintiff states' detailed evidence

Represented by

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division; Attorneys general of the 12 intervening states; America First Legal Foundation, for the intervening states

Supporting plaintiffs: Society for the Rule of Law and League of United Latin American Citizens and Secure Families Initiative and Arizona Students' Association and City of Madison, Wisconsin and Travis County, Texas, and its clerk and National Security Leaders for America and Bipartisan current and former members of Congress and Bipartisan former governors and State and local election officials and Harris County, Texas and American Postal Workers Union and NAACP and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and others and Bipartisan American Election Project and Whistleblower Aid and Asian Law Caucus and others and Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and others and DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence and others and Lawyers for Rule of Law

Content snapshot as of .