Inset: President Donald Trump listens during an event to announce the Freedom Haulers initiative at the White House, Thursday, July 30, 2026, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon). Background: The Supreme Court is seen on the morning after the conservative majority sided with the Trump administration in a case over President Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2026 (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite).
Everything old is new again, or perhaps vice versa, as the Trump administration tries for the second time in two months to obtain the U.S. Supreme Court's help in dislodging a court order by a Massachusetts-based district judge that blocks the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from overhauling how the country votes by mail.
Since spring, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, a Barack Obama appointee, has found herself at the center of various discrete disputes over President Donald Trump's March executive order directing the USPS to substantially restrict vote-by-mail systems.
In two cases before Talwani, she issued two injunctions, several months apart, stopping the government from moving forward. But the government moved forward anyway — in one case through the appeals process; in another case by ignoring the injunction entirely.
In a case brought by California and several other states, the Trump administration fought and won a reprieve in the form of an emergency stay issued by the nation's high court. Then, Talwani took note of the violated injunction in a case brought by the League of Women Voters — but dissolved that injunction in light of the justices issuing the shadow docket stay and due to the similar issues in both cases.
Around the same time, the district judge presciently noted that the Trump administration's violation of the second injunction, by issuing a final administrative rule, had immediately created a new avenue for the plaintiffs in both lawsuits to sue and quickly win relief in the form of a second injunction. And that's exactly what happened in late August.
Now, it's early September and the summer whipsawing threatens to continue into fall as the various dockets accumulate more and more filings. On Thursday, the government went to the shadow docket again — this time asking the justices to stay Talwani's latest injunction.
"Ten days ago, this Court issued a stay of a prior order entered by the same district court," U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the high court. "That order had enjoined implementation of a potential final rule by the Postal Service before it had even issued."
But now that the final rule has been issued, the Department of Justice says it is still too soon for Talwani to intervene.
"Just three days later—the day after the Postal Service formally published a final rule—the district court issued an order partially barring implementation of that rule, without meaningfully addressing the rule's contents or providing any meaningful analysis to support its conclusion that the rule was unlawful," the stay motion goes on. "The district court's continued prejudgment of the rule is baseless, and an immediate stay is warranted."
In issuing her latest stay, Talwani said the application of the rule means "the USPS is refusing to send mail ballots to eligible voters unless States or local election officials submit their mail ballot envelopes and return envelopes and receive advance approval from the USPS without regard to impending deadlines for the November 3, 2026 election."
The DOJ disputes that this kind of federal activity amounts to a federal takeover of mail-in voting and is more about design standards.
"Contrary to the claims of the district court and respondents that the Postal Service is trying to federalize the rules for mail-in voting, the Postal Service's final rule imposes only modest envelope-design and addressee-information requirements for federal-election ballots sent via U.S. Mail," the government's motion continues.
To hear the government tell it, the states and groups complaining are overreacting. Or rather, the suing parties are simply upset about the USPS creating "standardized design and review requirements for ballot envelopes."
The DOJ notes that the final USPS rule "requires" states "to upload the name, address, and barcode information of intended recipients of ballot mail in an online portal." But the government insists state election officials "would necessarily already possess" such information to "send ballot mail."
"The Rule ensures that States remain responsible for determining voter eligibility and eligibility to vote by mail," the stay motion goes on. "The Rule thus plainly does not seize control of States' administration of elections—it simply imposes reasonable preparation requirements for certain election-related mail."
At the same time, the DOJ argues the injunction blocks a "significant federal election-integrity measure shortly before an election." This means Talwani's order harms the USPS by affecting "the integrity of the federal mails and federal elections."
To that end, the government says the "baseless order" must fall.
"The Rule's regulation of the U.S. Mail—not federal elections—is plainly constitutional," the stay motion continues. "While the States have primary authority to regulate the manner of elections, they cannot choose to use the federal mails to carry out their elections but then insist that their election-related mail is somehow exempt from the Postal Service's rulemaking authority."