USPS Stops Work on Trump-Linked Mail-Ballot Verification Portal

Postal Service halts the verification portal

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Postal Service has stopped work on the centralized computer system tied to President Donald Trump's disputed mail-ballot restrictions, Postmaster General David Steiner told the Associated Press on Thursday.

The planned portal would have received voter-specific state lists and supported checks against information on ballot envelopes. Two preliminary injunctions continue to block mandatory enforcement, and the Supreme Court denied the administration's request to lift one of those orders before the midterms.

A memo sent to postal employees Wednesday said the agency will not enforce the new requirements during the 2026 federal election and will follow its established election-mail procedures, according to the AP. Steiner said the injunction means USPS is not continuing the portal work.

That is a major operational retreat, but it is not a final judgment invalidating every part of the Postal Service rule or the underlying executive order. The lower-court cases remain active, and later requirements would still have to comply with controlling law and court orders.

Correction, September 16

An earlier version reversed which parties failed to make the required showing before the First Circuit. The administration and other appellants—not the state challengers—failed to show a strong likelihood that the district court erred. The sentence below has been corrected. The Supreme Court's September 14 emergency order did not decide the underlying cases on the merits.

The Supreme Court leaves the restrictions blocked

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday denied the Trump administration's emergency request to let the U.S. Postal Service enforce new federal-election ballot-mail requirements before the November 3 midterms.

The brief order leaves in place U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's preliminary injunction in the Boston case. A separate preliminary injunction issued Sunday by U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols in Washington also continues to block the same rule.

The immediate result is practical: states may continue sending mail ballots under their existing processes. The Supreme Court did not issue a final ruling on whether the Postal Service rule or the underlying presidential directive is lawful.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed the restrictions should not take effect for the midterms but indicated he could support the administration's position later, according to Associated Press.

Lower courts found immediate enforcement likely unlawful and disruptive

The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on September 10 refused to pause Talwani's injunction. The three-judge panel said the administration and other appellants had not shown a strong likelihood that the district court was wrong to find the rule probably unlawful. It agreed, at this preliminary stage, that the rule likely regulates the manner of congressional elections—authority the Constitution assigns to states and Congress, not to an executive agency acting without specific congressional authorization.

Nichols, whom Trump appointed during his first term, independently found Sunday that no statute appears to give USPS authority to issue key parts of the rule. He warned that otherwise appropriate absentee or mail ballots could go uncounted if the requirements took effect before the election.

Those are preliminary judicial findings, not final judgments after trial. The administration may continue litigating the cases and arguing that the rule is a lawful postal measure intended to deter fraud.

The rule would make delivery depend on lists, envelopes and barcodes

The Postal Service's August 26 final rule requires state and local election officials to provide voter-specific lists through a federal portal, obtain USPS approval for ballot-envelope designs and place matching Intelligent Mail barcodes on outgoing and return envelopes.

The rule would allow USPS to refuse delivery when an envelope does not satisfy those requirements or when the recipient information does not match the federal database. That would govern postal handling; it would not itself determine whether a person is eligible to vote or whether an election office may count a ballot received through another lawful channel.

The First Circuit noted that the required online portal was not operational when the district court issued the injunction. It also cited findings that some states could not reprint envelopes, obtain federal approval and rebuild technical systems before ballots were due to move.

The election calendar turned the lawsuit into an emergency

The November 3 midterm election is already underway for some voters. Associated Press reports that Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin have begun sending mail ballots, leaving little time for election offices to redesign envelopes or adopt an unfinished federal system.

The appeals court said the district court found that immediate enforcement could disenfranchise millions of voters while producing minimal, if any, gains against fraud. The panel also said the record contained no evidence of past fraud or impending fraud connected to the November 3 election.

Those statements describe the evidence before the court and its preliminary assessment; they are not a universal finding that mail-ballot fraud can never occur. The administration continues to defend the rule as a lawful postal measure intended to protect election integrity.

California is a plaintiff, but current voter instructions have not changed

California is among the states challenging the rule. Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the First Circuit's September 10 decision, while the administration has continued defending the rule in court.

The injunction does not bar voluntary use of compatible mail-processing tools. Steiner said USPS will continue encouraging optional Intelligent Mail barcodes and may offer lower processing prices when they are used. That incentive is not the mandatory voter-verification portal the agency has stopped developing.

Steiner also advised voters using the mail to send ballots at least seven days before an election. That operational recommendation does not replace state deadlines or individualized instructions from election officials.

For California voters, the ruling does not change existing registration, mailing, drop-box or in-person voting instructions. Kern County voters should continue using the Kern County Elections Office and California Secretary of State for individualized deadlines and return options.

What is confirmed—and what remains unresolved

Confirmed: USPS says it has stopped work on the disputed portal and will use established election-mail procedures for the 2026 federal election; the Supreme Court denied the administration's emergency request; two district judges have preliminarily blocked mandatory enforcement; and the First Circuit refused to pause Talwani's order.

Not finally decided: whether every challenged part of the USPS rule is unconstitutional or unlawful, how the lower-court cases and any appeals will proceed, and what requirements could apply after the November election.

The administration says the rule would protect the mail from voter fraud. Opponents allege the rushed system could block lawful ballots. Those competing claims remain disputed; Monday's order settles only whether the rule may take effect now.

Mail voting has not been abolished. California and Kern County voters should continue following current instructions from their state and local election offices. What’s the Scoop With Broach will update this report if a controlling order changes the rule's enforceability.