Should the ballot mail rule be blocked while the case goes on?
The judge blocked the rule's required steps through Nov. 3, 2026. The First Circuit combined the four appeals of that order and set opening briefs for Nov. 2.
California and other states ask the judge to block the rule before November
They argued that only states and Congress set election rules and no law lets the Postal Service withhold ballot mail, so the rule must be blocked.
They argued the rule should take effect, relying on a Missouri election official's declaration that states can comply in time.
They answered both oppositions and pressed for an injunction and a stay of the rule.
It argued the rule sets modest mail standards that postal law allows, not election rules. After the hearing it explained how the rule would work.
The judge found the rule likely intrudes on the election powers of states and Congress, and blocked its required steps through Nov. 3, 2026.
The Postal Service and the intervening states appeal the injunction
The Postal Service and its leaders appealed the injunction to the First Circuit the day it was issued.
The intervening states filed their own appeal of the injunction the same day.
The court combined the four appeals of the injunction, including the League of Women Voters case, and set opening briefs for Nov. 2, 2026.
Next step: Appellants' opening briefs due
Should the rule be paused right away, before a fuller hearing?Partly: mandatory parts paused for 14 days ·
The judge paused the rule's mandatory parts for 14 days on Aug. 27, 2026. Requests to pause that order failed, and its appeals were later dropped.
California and other states ask for an immediate restraining order
They asked the court to stop the rule right away, before a full hearing on a preliminary injunction.
The Postal Service opposed any immediate order against the rule.
The court paused the rule's mandatory parts for 14 days for the November election, granting the request in part.
The Postal Service and the intervening states ask to pause the temporary order
The Postal Service appealed the temporary order and asked the judge to pause it during the appeal.
The intervening states also appealed the temporary order and asked to pause it.
The plaintiff states told the court they would oppose both motions to pause the order.
The court denied both motions to pause the temporary order pending appeal.
The appellants ask to drop their appeals of the temporary order
At the appellants' request, the court dismissed the appeals of the temporary order. Its mandate formally ended them on Nov. 1, 2026.
Can Emanuel McCray join the case and have it dismissed?No: both requests denied ·
Emanuel McCray, who is not a party, asked to intervene and to dismiss the case. The judge denied both requests on Sep. 17, 2026.
Emanuel McCray asks to join the case and have it dismissed
McCray, who is not a party, asked to intervene and to have the case dismissed with prejudice.
The court found McCray had not shown the defendants would fail to represent his interests, and he could not seek dismissal as a non-party.
Should the injunction be paused during the appeal?No: both courts refused ·
The Postal Service and the intervening states asked to pause the injunction. The First Circuit refused on Sep. 10, and the Supreme Court refused on Sep. 14.
The Postal Service and the intervening states ask the First Circuit for a stay
It asked the appeals court to pause the injunction while the appeal goes forward, and to pause it briefly in the meantime.
The intervening states filed their own motion to pause the injunction during the appeal.
The plaintiff states opposed both motions to pause the injunction.
Both groups of appellants filed replies supporting their stay requests.
The panel denied both motions, agreeing the rule likely intrudes on states' and Congress's election powers. The brief-pause request was moot.
The Postal Service asks the Supreme Court to pause the injunction
The Solicitor General withdrew an earlier application and asked the Court to pause the Sep. 4 injunction during the appeal.
Justice Jackson ordered responses to the new application by Sep. 9, 2026.
The plaintiff states and the voter groups in the companion case opposed a stay.
The government replied in support of its application and later filed a supplemental brief.
The Court found the government unlikely to win and the harms against a stay. Justice Kavanaugh concurred; Justices Alito and Thomas dissented.
Can 12 states join the case to defend the rule?Yes, by permission; not as a matter of right ·
Twelve states asked to join on the Postal Service's side. The judge let them join by permission, but not as a matter of right.
Twelve states ask to join the case to defend the rule
Twelve states asked to join on the Postal Service's side, as a matter of right or, failing that, by the court's permission.
The court denied intervention as of right but allowed the unopposed request to join by permission, and set a deadline for their opposition.