Carl J. Nichols

Portrait of Carl J. Nichols
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

United States district judge for the District of Columbia.

What we have documented

We have documented 1 statement by Carl J. Nichols, in 1 case. Each statement below gives the quotation, its original source and a link to the full case.

Case updates

Next steps for the blocked USPS ballot-mail rule

Get an email if courts rule on the broader challenge to the rule, or if the administration or USPS moves to apply it to later elections.

Important updates only. Free. Confirm your email to start. Unsubscribe anytime. How we handle your email.

Statements by Carl J. Nichols

Portrait of Carl J. Nichols

Carl J. Nichols

Role at the time: U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia, granting preliminary injunctions

Condemned

Statement summary

Judge Carl J. Nichols granted preliminary injunctions against the USPS ballot-mail rule, finding that its central provisions exceeded the Postal Service’s statutory authority and that allowing it to operate risked ballots going uncounted in the coming election.

“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.”
Read the original text (opens in a new tab)DSCC v. Trump: memorandum opinion granting preliminary injunctions against the USPS ballot-mail ruleStatutory-authority analysis at p.15; public-interest analysis at p.20; conclusion and date line at p.24.
Why we used 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.

A participant is a subject of the case. A speaker has a statement documented in it. A commentator has an opinion or editorial documented in it.

Topics in this coverage