Federal Judge Blocks Trump Mail-In Voting Changes Via Injunction

• A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's proposed changes to mail-in voting procedures.
• The blocked changes, finalized by the U.S. Postal Service on August 27, included new design requirements for ballots and a national voter registration portal.
• U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols found the Postal Service likely exceeded its statutory authority in issuing key parts of the rule.
• The court determined that implementing these rules so close to the election would cause irreparable harm by risking uncounted ballots.
• The ruling ensures that existing state election procedures for mail ballots remain in place, preventing immediate disruption.

The harm of untransmitted ballots — both to voters and candidates — is irreversible.

A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction, effectively blocking the Trump administration's proposed changes to mail-in voting procedures. The ruling, handed down late Sunday night by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Donald Trump appointee, prevents the implementation of new design requirements for mail ballots and a mandate to send ballots only to voters listed on a national registry. This decision comes after the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) finalized these election changes on August 27, setting the stage for a legal challenge that culminated in this significant judicial intervention.

Judge Nichols' 24-page opinion highlighted that the public possesses a "strong interest in exercising the fundamental political right to vote." He concluded that without this injunction, there was an elevated risk that a substantial number of legitimate absentee or mail-in ballots would not be counted in the upcoming elections, an outcome the public has a significant interest in preventing. The court's finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the rule was *ultra vires* — meaning beyond the Postal Service's legal authority — was central to the decision to issue the preliminary injunction mail ballots.

This ruling follows a complex legal trajectory. Judge Nichols had previously denied a request for a preliminary injunction in May from Democratic leaders in Congress and the Democratic National Committee, determining the case was not ripe until the USPS election rule was finalized. That initial rejection, on May 28, cited a lack of irreparable harm without an official rule to analyze, a stance echoed by the D.C. Circuit on July 28 when it rejected the Democrats' appeal. The Supreme Court also rejected an identical case brought by a multistate coalition in a 6-3 decision on August 24, just days before the USPS published its final rule.

The final rule, published on August 27, introduced two major changes for election officials: ballots must be "automation compatible," include an Election Mail logo, and feature a voter's unique "Intelligent Mail" barcode. Additionally, officials would be required to register eligible voters in a new "Federal Ballot Mail Portal" before ballots could be sent. Judge Nichols found that Congress had not granted the Postal Service the authority to issue key parts of this rule, concluding that the record weighed in favor of preliminary injunctive relief against the Trump administration voting overhaul.

Democrats argued that states would find it impossible to design, reprint, and review election envelopes to meet the new requirements before the November elections, potentially causing delays in counting an estimated 50 million ballots. Judge Nichols agreed, determining that such consequences would clearly lead to irreparable damage. He emphasized that "the harm of untransmitted ballots — both to voters and candidates — is irreversible," underscoring the critical nature of the injunction.

The court also addressed the *Purcell Principle*, established in the 2006 case *Purcell v. Gonzalez*, which generally advises courts against changing election rules too close to an election to avoid confusion. Judge Nichols rejected the government's concerns about election fraud, noting that the Justice Department provided no evidence of significant fraud in the midterms. Crucially, he determined that the *Purcell Principle* did not bar him from issuing the injunction, citing a D.C. Circuit suggestion that if the changes proved unlawful, an injunction would be appropriate to "preserve the states’ existing electoral status quo." This Carl Nichols mail-in voting injunction ensures that the current election administration framework remains intact.

Election lawyers and compliance officers should advise clients that the Trump administration's proposed USPS mail-in voting design requirements are currently enjoined, maintaining existing state election procedures. This prevents the need for immediate adaptation to the new rules and highlights judicial scrutiny of executive actions impacting election administration.

Source: Reporting on a federal court decision