A federal judge in Washington has dissolved the final remaining injunction blocking President Trump's executive order on mail-in voting, removing the last legal barrier that had kept the directive from taking full effect ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The ruling clears the way for sweeping new restrictions on how the U.S. Postal Service handles mail-in ballots, a move the administration says will protect election integrity and that critics warn could disenfranchise millions of voters.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, issued the order on Tuesday, finding that the coalition of 18 states and several voting-rights groups that had challenged the executive order failed to demonstrate the kind of irreparable harm needed to keep the injunction in place. McFadden's ruling came after the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision last month, stayed a separate appellate injunction on the same order, signaling that the administration was likely to prevail on the merits.
The executive order, signed in March 2026, directs the Postal Service to implement new verification procedures for mail-in ballot envelopes, including requiring that ballot return envelopes carry a matching signature and a partial Social Security number. It also instructs USPS to stop delivering ballots that arrive without prepaid postage, reversing a longstanding postal practice of delivering ballots even when voters forget a stamp.
The directive does not ban mail-in voting outright. States remain free to send ballots to voters and to accept them. But the new USPS protocols add friction to the return process in ways that election administrators in both parties have said will increase the rate of rejected ballots.
Under the order, postal workers must visually confirm that the signature field and partial SSN field on a ballot return envelope are filled in before accepting it for delivery. Envelopes missing either field would be returned to sender rather than forwarded to election offices. The Postal Service would also end its practice of delivering unstamped ballots, which the agency has done as a matter of internal policy for decades.
White House counsel D. John Sauer called the ruling "a complete vindication of the President's authority to direct the operations of the executive branch, including the Postal Service." Sauer said the verification measures "simply ensure that the mail system is not used as a tool for fraud."
"The President has broad authority over the Postal Service, and these common-sense steps will help restore confidence in elections for tens of millions of Americans who have lost faith in the system."
The administration's position rests on the theory that the Postal Service, as an independent establishment of the executive branch, falls within the President's supervisory authority. The executive order invoked the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 and the President's Article II powers to direct how mail is processed.
The order drew immediate legal challenges when it was signed. Within 48 hours, attorneys general from 18 states, led by California and New York, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the directive exceeded presidential authority, violated the Elections Clause of the Constitution, and amounted to voter suppression targeting communities that rely heavily on mail-in voting.
A separate suit, filed by the League of Women Voters and several disability-rights organizations, raised Americans with Disabilities Act claims, arguing that the signature and SSN requirements would create barriers for voters with certain physical and cognitive disabilities. The administration has framed these broader institutional challenges as part of a pattern of resistance to Trump's agenda, similar to its push to strip the American Bar Association of its traditional gatekeeper role in judicial nominations.
In April, Judge McFadden initially declined to issue a temporary restraining order, but a different judge on the same court, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee, granted a preliminary injunction in the state AG case in May. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that injunction in a 2-1 decision in June, with the majority finding that the states had shown a likelihood of success on their Elections Clause argument.
The administration then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. In a brief, unsigned order on July 22, the Court's six conservative justices stayed the D.C. Circuit's injunction, allowing the executive order to go into effect on an interim basis while litigation continued. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a sharp dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, accusing the majority of committing a "serious legal error" by allowing the order to take effect before full briefing on the merits.
Tuesday's ruling from Judge McFadden went further than the Supreme Court's stay. Rather than simply allowing the order to remain in effect temporarily, McFadden ruled on the merits of the preliminary injunction, finding that the state coalition was unlikely to succeed on its core claims.
On the Elections Clause argument, McFadden wrote that the clause grants state legislatures authority over the "times, places, and manner" of federal elections but does not prevent the executive branch from managing its own mail operations. He distinguished between regulating elections and regulating mail delivery, finding the executive order fell on the mail-delivery side of the line.
"The President did not order states to change their election laws. He directed the Postal Service to change how it handles a particular category of mail. That the mail in question happens to contain ballots does not transform a postal directive into an election regulation."
McFadden also rejected the argument that the order violated the Postal Reorganization Act, which grants the USPS Board of Governors authority over postal operations. He found that the executive order was "directive in nature" but that the Postmaster General had voluntarily adopted the protocols, making the question of presidential command versus agency discretion "largely academic." The administration's willingness to test the boundaries of executive authority mirrors its approach in other high-profile disputes, including the ongoing legal battle over the White House ballroom construction, where the Supreme Court similarly allowed the administration to proceed while challenges played out.
On the ADA claims raised in the separate lawsuit, McFadden declined to rule, noting that those claims were before a different judge and remained pending.
With the injunction dissolved, the Postal Service can now fully implement the new protocols ahead of the November 2026 midterms. USPS spokesperson Kim Frum told CNBC that the agency "is prepared to implement the required procedures in time for the general election" and that guidance would be issued to local postmasters within two weeks.
The practical effects could be substantial. In the 2024 general election, roughly 46 million voters cast ballots by mail, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Studies from the MIT Election Data + Science Lab have estimated that between 1 and 2 percent of mail ballots are already rejected in any given cycle for signature mismatches and other defects. Election administrators in several states have warned that the new SSN requirement could push that rejection rate significantly higher.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat whose state conducts elections almost entirely by mail, called the ruling "a disaster for voters." She said Colorado would explore "every legal option" to protect its vote-by-mail system, including a potential appeal to the D.C. Circuit and a renewed request for Supreme Court intervention.
Republican officials struck a different tone. Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley praised the decision, saying it "puts the integrity of the ballot ahead of the convenience of the process." He added that voters "can still vote by mail in every state that allows it" and that filling in a signature and partial SSN "takes less than 30 seconds."
The provision ending delivery of unstamped ballots has drawn particular attention. For decades, the Postal Service has treated ballot return envelopes as a special category, delivering them to election offices even when voters fail to affix a stamp. The USPS has never formally codified this practice in regulation; it has operated as internal guidance passed down through postal management.
The executive order directs the Postal Service to treat ballot return envelopes like any other piece of mail, meaning unstamped envelopes would be returned to the voter with a notice that postage is required. The administration argues this simply applies existing postal rules uniformly. Opponents counter that it amounts to a de facto poll tax, particularly for low-income voters who may not have stamps readily available.
McFadden addressed this argument briefly, noting that "the Constitution prohibits poll taxes imposed by government as a condition of voting" but that a postage stamp "is a condition of mail delivery, not a condition of voting." He pointed out that voters retain the option of dropping ballots at election offices, drop boxes, or early voting sites in most states. The political intensity surrounding the order has created sharp reactions across the spectrum, including from local officials like the Philadelphia District Attorney, who has taken an aggressive posture against other Trump administration initiatives.
The state coalition has 30 days to appeal McFadden's ruling to the D.C. Circuit. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement that an appeal is "certain" and that the coalition would seek an emergency stay pending appeal. But the Supreme Court's July order staying the earlier injunction makes it unlikely that the D.C. Circuit would reimpose a block, given the high court's clear signal on the merits.
The ADA lawsuit remains pending before Judge Howell, and a hearing on a preliminary injunction in that case is scheduled for September 15. If Howell grants an injunction on disability-access grounds, it could create a split within the same district court, potentially forcing the cases to be consolidated or sent back to the D.C. Circuit on an expedited basis.
Meanwhile, state election officials face a compressed timeline. Early voting in several states begins in late September, and mail ballots typically go out 45 days before Election Day. Secretaries of state in at least seven states have said they will need to redesign ballot return envelopes to include signature and SSN fields, a process that normally takes months.
The Postal Service has said it will begin training postal workers on the new screening procedures by September 1. The agency acknowledged in a filing last month that "some period of adjustment" would be required and that "isolated errors in implementation" were possible during the initial rollout.
The ruling lands in a political environment already charged with disputes over voting access and election administration. Republicans have spent years arguing that mail-in voting is uniquely vulnerable to fraud, pointing to documented cases of ballot harvesting and occasional prosecutions for mail-ballot fraud. Democrats have countered that mail voting is safe, popular, and essential for voters who cannot easily get to the polls, including elderly, disabled, and rural voters.
The Trump administration has framed the executive order as part of a broader election-integrity agenda that includes a separate directive ordering federal agencies to share citizenship data with state voter-roll maintenance programs. That order is also being challenged in court.
For conservatives, the ruling represents a victory for the principle that election security measures are not inherently suppressive. For the states and groups challenging the order, it represents an unprecedented assertion of presidential power over a process the Constitution assigns primarily to state legislatures and Congress.
The midterms are 69 days away. The legal fight is far from over, but the ballots, and the rules governing how they travel through the mail, are now squarely under the administration's control. Whether the courts will let that stand through November is the question that matters most, and the clock is running.
