Twelve state AGs appeal ruling that blocked Trump mail voting rule
The legal challenge aims to enforce restrictions on federal ballot mail before the 2028 presidential election.
By Mia Bennett ·
Twelve Republican state attorneys general began appealing a federal court order on Thursday that prevented the United States Postal Service from implementing new restrictions on mail-in voting for federal elections. The legal action targets a preliminary injunction issued in September by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, which stopped the Postal Service from enforcing a plan developed under an executive order from President Trump.
The coalition includes legal officials from Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas. This move comes shortly after the conclusion of this year's midterm elections, during which Democratic candidates won majority control in several of those states. In Texas and Kansas, new Democratic attorneys general are scheduled to assume office in January, which may affect the duration of their states' participation in the litigation.
The disputed rule, released by the Postal Service in late August, required states to submit lists of voters' names and addresses to qualify for federal ballot delivery through the agency. Judge Nichols, who serves in Washington, D.C., found that the Postal Service likely lacks the statutory power to impose this requirement on the states without specific congressional authorization.
In his written opinion, Nichols stated that the government conceded the agency could only enforce the rule if Congress had granted it that authority. He noted that no current statute provides the Postal Service with the power to issue the key components of the regulation. The administration previously sought to apply these restrictions to the 2026 midterms, but a separate ruling by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston blocked that specific implementation for this year's cycle.
Election officials raised concerns during the summer that last-minute changes could disrupt the mailing process for tens of millions of voters. They argued that the changes posed particular risks to voters with disabilities and residents in areas without local polling sites. A whistleblower report further indicated that the online system required for compliance had not been adequately tested, raising fears that eligible voters might not receive their ballots on time.
The Supreme Court declined to pause Talwani's ruling in September, allowing the block on the midterm implementation to stand. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from that decision. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred, noting that state officials lacked sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule for the midterms. However, he observed that there is at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority for future elections.
The Justice Department has not confirmed whether the administration will file its own notice to appeal Nichols' ruling. The filing deadline for that notice is Friday. Spokesman Matthew Tragesser stated in an email that the department does not comment on ongoing litigation.
