A second federal judge ordered the U.S. Postal Service not to implement a late-cycle rule governing federal ballot mail. The preliminary injunction arrives while the Supreme Court is considering a related government appeal and some states have begun mailing ballots. Courts in Washington and Boston have now blocked implementation of Postal Service requirements tied to a presidential executive order on mail voting.
The reported sequence is specific. U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols issued a preliminary injunction late Sunday against implementation of the Postal Service rule. Nichols wrote that the plaintiffs showed an increased risk that otherwise valid absentee or mail ballots would not be counted without an injunction. A separate injunction from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston is already before the Supreme Court on an administration request for relief. The Postal Service issued the final rule on Aug. 21 after President Donald Trump directed the agency to pursue changes through Executive Order 14399. The rule requires preapproval of ballot-envelope designs and submission of voter information through a federal portal.
The remaining factual record adds operational detail. Associated Press reporting said the portal was not active while the litigation was unfolding. Mail ballots were already being sent in Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin, with other states preparing to begin distribution. Nichols had declined an earlier injunction request as premature before the final rule existed, then reconsidered after the agency issued the rule. The Postal Service has said its operational goal is reliable ballot-mail handling; election officials challenging the rule say the new prerequisites cannot be implemented safely this close to voting.
The surrounding context helps define what the report does and does not establish. States administer elections under different statutes and calendars, while the Postal Service controls mail preparation and delivery standards. The litigation separates the legality of the presidential directive from the practical readiness of systems needed to carry it out. A Supreme Court stay decision could alter the operative rules without resolving the lawsuits on their merits. The federal record includes the executive order, the Postal Service rule and emergency filings from parties seeking or opposing a stay. Claims about disenfranchisement are prospective risks under review rather than a measured count of ballots already lost.
Some points remain unresolved. The Supreme Court had not ruled on the pending stay request when this edition closed. The final number of jurisdictions and voters affected depends on subsequent orders and state implementation choices. The next verifiable developments are A Supreme Court order on the Boston injunction. Postal Service guidance to state and local election officials after the rulings.