WA sues Trump admin over mail ballot rules
Archived — this story has rotated out of today’s deck. It is kept here in full.
The gist
23 states and D.C. sued the USPS over a Trump-backed mail-ballot rule. The Supreme Court earlier called a similar challenge premature, but states now cite a new final rule.
Background
In March, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to compile a list of eligible voters and requiring the U.S. Postal Service to accept ballots only from voters on those lists. The USPS published a final rule on Aug 21 to implement this, despite a court order blocking it. The Supreme Court on Aug 24 ruled that states lacked standing to challenge the original order because it was an 'internal directive,' but did not bless its substance. Now, after the USPS issued its final rule, 23 states and D.C. have filed a new lawsuit, arguing the rule usurps state authority over elections.
How it unfolded
- Mar 2026President Trump signed an executive order directing DHS to compile a list of eligible voters and requiring USPS to accept ballots only from those on the list.
- Aug 21, 2026USPS published a final rule implementing the order, despite a court order blocking it, so it could take effect if injunctions were lifted.
- Aug 24, 2026The Supreme Court ruled that states lack standing to challenge the executive order because it was an 'internal directive,' but did not bless its substance.
- Aug 26, 2026Attorneys general from 23 states and D.C. filed a new lawsuit against USPS, arguing the final rule is unlawful and seeking an emergency block before mail ballots are sent.
Who’s saying what
- States
- The rule is an unlawful overreach that usurps state authority over elections and threatens chaos in the upcoming election.
- Administration
- The Department of Justice says it remains fully prepared to fight for election integrity and secure the voting process.
- Critics
- Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias said USPS 'caved to Trump' in issuing the rule and its legal rationale.
Still unverified
The Supreme Court's ruling did not address the legality of the executive order's substance, leaving that open.