The key issue is the exact composition of the plaintiffs—not simply a “25-state lawsuit”

A new lawsuit over the Trump administration’s mail voting measures was filed on August 26, 2026. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs are 24 states, including California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington; Washington, D.C.; and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

Describing the matter simply as “25 states suing” can therefore misstate both the number and the composition of the parties. CBS described the plaintiffs as “24 states and Washington, D.C.,” while the AP reported a lawsuit by roughly 24 Democratic-leaning states and described Letitia James as one of “25 Democratic attorneys general.”

The safest wording is: “A new lawsuit filed by 24 states, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania’s governor.”

What does the USPS final rule require?

On August 26, 2026, the USPS published its final rule, “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections,” in the Federal Register. The document number is 2026-17238, and the citation is 91 FR 54966. The rule revises standards related to federal-election ballot mail in 39 CFR Part 111 and the Domestic Mail Manual.

Three key requirements have been identified:

  • Outbound federal-election ballot mail must carry the official Election Mail logo.
  • Envelopes must be compatible with automated processing and must have a unique Intelligent Mail barcode for each voter.
  • States or authorized election officials must provide the Federal Ballot Mail Portal with the recipient’s name and address, the unique IMb for the outbound and return envelopes, and information about the state where the election office is located.

The rule directs the USPS not to accept noncompliant Outbound Federal Ballot Mail and to return it to the sender. However, in its explanation of the rule, the USPS said it does not administer voter eligibility, maintain voter-registration rolls, or count ballots.

Why has the lawsuit intensified now?

The rule follows Executive Order 14399, issued by President Donald Trump on March 31, 2026. The order directed the USPS to begin rulemaking on mail and absentee voting within 60 days and issue a final rule within 120 days.

Then, on August 24, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed a lower-court injunction in an earlier state lawsuit on procedural grounds, finding the case premature. Crucially, the Court did not make a definitive ruling on the legality of Trump’s executive order or the USPS measures implementing it.

On August 26, the AP reported that Judge Indira Talwani lifted her order barring the USPS from applying Trump’s executive order to the November 2026 election. According to the AP, Talwani said the Supreme Court’s decision made the lift unavoidable, while also describing the executive order as potentially disruptive and “likely unconstitutional.”

Issues raised by the states in the new lawsuit

The case number is Case No. 1:26-cv-13917 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The defendants are the USPS, Postmaster General David Steiner, Deputy Postmaster General Doug Tulino, and members of the USPS Board of Governors.

The plaintiffs argue that the USPS rule infringes on states’ authority to administer elections and conflicts with the USPS’s statutory authority, the Privacy Act, and federal voting-rights law. They also argue that implementation would require envelope redesigns, USPS review, the creation of a portal data-transmission system, training for election officials, and voter guidance within weeks.

The AP reported that the first mail ballots were scheduled to be sent the following week. As a result, this lawsuit is not merely a policy dispute; it has become a procedural battle directly tied to an imminent election schedule.

Wording that requires caution at this stage

Because this matter directly concerns elections and voting rights, wording is especially important. Based on the facts currently confirmed, it would be inaccurate to say that “the Supreme Court upheld the rule’s constitutionality,” that “the USPS banned all mail voting,” or that “widespread mail-voting fraud was proven.”

In its explanation of the final rule, the USPS said that, because of an existing injunction, the government would not implement the rule for the 2026 election until it obtained relief from that injunction. But court proceedings moved forward the same day, and a new lawsuit was filed, so the rule’s potential implementation and the status of the injunction may change with further decisions.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis told the AP that the USPS proposal was intended to protect mail-voting security and election integrity. The USPS told the AP it would not comment because litigation was pending.