Nichols blocks the ballot-mail rule as beyond the Postal Service’s authority
U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia, granting preliminary injunctions
“The key portions of the Rule exceed any conception of the outer bounds of these authorities.” … “Plaintiffs have demonstrated that, absent an injunction, there is an increased risk that a significant number of otherwise appropriate absentee or mail-in ballots will ultimately not be counted in the upcoming elections. … The public has a strong interest in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The signed 24-page opinion of Judge Carl J. Nichols, in consolidated actions DSCC v. Trump (26-cv-01114) and League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President (26-cv-01132), with NAACP plaintiffs also joined. It is a second, separate injunction from the Massachusetts case already recorded in this dossier. The court granted the LULAC and NAACP motions in full and the DSCC motion in part.
Before the quotation
Nichols had denied an earlier motion in May on the ground that the claims were not yet ripe. The plaintiffs renewed their motions after the final rule issued on August 21, 2026.
After the quotation
The court granted the LULAC and NAACP motions in full and the DSCC motion in part. A separate injunction from the District of Massachusetts was before the Supreme Court at the same time, and the Supreme Court denied a stay in that case the following day.
How this statement is classified
Case context: Should Trump’s new mail-in voting restrictions apply to the 2026 midterms?
The label describes this statement’s response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to implementing and enforcing the mandatory USPS ballot-mail requirements for the November 2026 election, Nichols blocks that implementation and holds the plaintiffs likely to succeed in showing the rule was issued beyond the agency’s power. This is a judicial ruling, not a political statement, and it decides likelihood of success rather than finally resolving the rule’s lawfulness.
- Recorded on
- Published here
Should Trump’s new mail-in voting restrictions apply to the 2026 midterms?
Explore the case context, sources and public responses.
More from this case
Read the full case“Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court ... It is a big loss for Republicans, and America itself.”Read statement
“We have at all times acted within our legal authority to issue a rule to achieve those policies, but ultimately the courts will decide that question, and we will follow the court’s determination. It is that simple.” … “We deliver the mail. Someone else makes the rules. … Once that fight is finished, we’ll do whatever the courts say we can do.”Read statement
“California stood up for democracy and we won”Read statement