By Lucretia Hughes Klucken
WASHINGTON — A coalition of Democratic-led states has returned to federal court seeking to stop President Donald Trump’s attempt to impose new federal requirements on mail voting, opening another legal front just weeks before millions of ballots are scheduled to begin moving through the U.S. Postal Service for the 2026 midterm elections.
The new lawsuit was filed Wednesday against the Postal Service by 23 states, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, according to Reuters. It challenges a newly finalized USPS rule implementing portions of Trump’s March executive order on elections.
The lawsuit comes only days after the Supreme Court lifted an injunction in an earlier case brought by many of the same states. But the high court did not rule that Trump’s executive order was constitutional. Instead, the majority concluded that the earlier challenge had been brought prematurely, before the administration had taken the concrete steps necessary to implement the disputed provisions.
Now those concrete steps have arrived.
The Postal Service finalized its new mail-ballot rule Friday, setting the stage for another court fight over a fundamental constitutional question: How much authority does a president have to regulate elections traditionally administered by the states under rules established by state legislatures and Congress?
What Trump’s order would do
Trump’s executive order seeks several changes to the handling of mail ballots. Under the Postal Service’s implementing rule, states would be required to provide information identifying voters eligible to receive mail ballots and use federally compliant ballot envelopes, including barcode requirements.
The Postal Service could refuse to process outgoing mail ballots from jurisdictions that fail to comply with the federal requirements.
The administration argues the requirements are intended to strengthen election security and ensure ballots are sent only to eligible voters. Trump has repeatedly criticized mail voting and has pushed for tighter federal election safeguards since returning to the White House.
Democratic attorneys general and voting-rights organizations see the issue very differently. They contend that neither the president nor the Postal Service possesses authority to rewrite state election procedures through executive action.
That disagreement is now back before the courts.
States say the timing could create chaos
New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the Democratic attorneys general participating in the challenge, said states are already well into preparations for November’s elections and accused the federal government of interfering at the last moment.
“USPS has no authority to decide who can and cannot vote by mail,” James said Wednesday.
Election officials argue the practical consequences could be significant because ballots are scheduled to begin going out soon. States contend that complying with the new federal system could require new equipment, employee training, changes to ballot envelopes and additional spending at a time when election preparations are already underway.
The timing therefore matters almost as much as the constitutional arguments.
During the 2024 election, the Postal Service handled nearly 100 million pieces of election mail involving ballots, according to Reuters, and approximately 30% of voters cast ballots by mail. Changing the rules governing that system shortly before another national election could affect millions of voters and thousands of election administrators.
What the Supreme Court actually decided
The Supreme Court’s ruling this week has already generated considerable political debate, but what the justices did — and did not do — is important.
The court did not issue a final decision declaring Trump’s mail-voting policy constitutional.
Instead, the court lifted an injunction stemming from an earlier lawsuit after concluding that the states’ claims were premature because the administration had not yet implemented the disputed policy.
That distinction is critical because the Postal Service has now issued the rule the states previously argued was coming. The new lawsuit therefore challenges an actual regulation rather than simply attempting to prevent a potential future action.
The constitutional fight remains unresolved.
Who controls elections?
The Constitution gives states substantial authority over the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections, while also giving Congress power to alter those regulations.
Presidents are not specifically granted the same election-regulating authority.
That is the foundation of the states’ argument. They contend Trump is attempting to exercise power the Constitution gives to state legislatures and Congress.
The administration, however, argues that the federal government has legitimate authority over federal election integrity and that the Postal Service can establish requirements governing the mail it is responsible for transporting.
That creates a potentially significant separation-of-powers dispute extending beyond the political argument over mail ballots themselves.
The question is not simply whether additional ballot-security measures are desirable. The courts must also determine who has the legal authority to impose them.
Mail voting itself is not new
Mail voting has existed in the United States for generations, and states administer it in different ways.
Some states automatically mail ballots to registered voters. Others require voters to request absentee or mail ballots. Deadlines for requesting, returning and counting ballots also vary considerably from state to state.
That decentralized system reflects the larger American election structure. The United States does not operate elections through one centralized national election agency. State and local officials conduct them under a combination of state and federal law.
Trump’s executive order potentially shifts part of that balance by involving federal agencies more directly in determining which mail ballots the Postal Service will handle.
Supporters argue that nationwide elections require nationwide safeguards.
Opponents argue that a president cannot create those safeguards unilaterally when the Constitution assigns election-law authority elsewhere.
Both questions — election security and constitutional authority — will now be tested in court.
Another injunction, another courtroom
The legal situation has become increasingly complicated because several cases involving Trump’s order are moving through federal courts simultaneously.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts previously blocked portions of the executive order. After the Supreme Court’s procedural ruling, that injunction was vacated, but other litigation involving voting-rights groups and the Postal Service has continued.
The newly filed states’ case seeks fresh judicial relief based on the Postal Service’s finalized rule. A hearing on the latest request for a restraining order is scheduled for Sept. 3, according to Reuters.
That leaves courts operating against the election calendar.
Unlike ordinary litigation, election cases cannot simply proceed indefinitely without practical consequences. Ballots must be designed, printed, mailed, returned and counted according to deadlines that do not move because lawyers are still arguing.
The bigger issue
Americans can debate mail voting.
They can debate voter identification, citizenship verification, ballot deadlines, drop boxes, signature verification and whether Election Day should mean exactly that — one day.
Those are legitimate policy debates.
But this lawsuit raises a separate constitutional question that should not be lost inside partisan arguments.
A president may believe an election policy is necessary. Democratic governors and attorneys general may believe that policy is harmful. Neither belief alone determines what the Constitution permits.
Courts do.
And the Supreme Court’s decision this week did not end that debate.
It essentially changed when and how the challenge could be brought.
Now that the Postal Service has issued the regulation, Democratic-led states are back in court with a new case, the administration is defending its election-security agenda, and election officials are watching the calendar.
The 2026 midterms are approaching quickly.
The legal battle over who controls the rules governing millions of mail ballots may be heading back toward the Supreme Court just as quickly.
Original article
Comments