The Department of Justice is again pleading with the U.S. Supreme Court to greenlight President Donald Trump’s mail voting executive order, despite multiple injunctions blocking it. Trump’s DOJ filed a supplemental notice Monday in a lawsuit filed by Democratic state officials, arguing further for its restrictive voting rule that would federalize control over elections and restrict mail voting.
The rule will immediately go into effect if the Supreme Court grants the DOJ’s request and if the district court vacates its second injunction. This notice follows a flurry of responses to the United States Postal Service’s late Friday night announcement finalizing its rule to alter how voting by mail will proceed for this year’s midterms.
That rule would make it easier for the federal government to track ballots, rejecting any from states that refuse to comply with the new logo and barcode system. If enacted, the new USPS rule would require states to redesign ballot envelopes used by millions of voters to include barcodes, allowing the Postal Service to track who voted by mail. And its rushed implementation — just over two months remain before Election Day — could inject havoc into an enormously consequential vote.
But in its latest attempt to speed up the restrictive voting measure, the DOJ claimed the rule is no big deal because it “does not simply mirror” Trump’s March 2026 order. It also stated USPS would not reject ballots from people who aren’t on state-submitted lists. “The Postal Service’s final rule imposes only modest requirements for preparation and envelope design for federal ballot mail—requirements that fall well within its traditional authorities to impose mailing standards for particularly sensitive types of mail,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote for the DOJ.
Sauer went on to discredit U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani’s injunctions, writing she “seriously overstepped” in ruling on actions of the Trump administration that the DOJ argued cannot be measured because the rule is not yet in effect. The DOJ argued Talwani’s injunction “prejudg[ed] the merits of a hypothetical rule” when she blocked implementation of the order. Because of this, the department said the Supreme Court must step in to let the rule move forward.
Talwani blocked the rule for a second time earlier this month in a lawsuit filed by pro-voting groups, ruling Trump’s executive order was likely unconstitutional. Voting rights groups who promptly responded over the weekend to the DOJ’s notice of a final rule said the threat isn’t hypothetical, urging the district court to enforce the injunction to shield against “chaos” they said would inevitably result.
