DOJ argues Trump’s mail voting restrictions should go into effect even if voters are disenfranchised

President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) wants a lower court order against the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) new mail voting rule lifted — even if it means voters would be disenfranchised as a result.

The department made the alarming admission earlier this week while asking the Supreme Court to stay U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s recent injunction barring USPS from forcing states to change their mail voting processes or lose out on a key way to send ballots to voters.

“If the injunction is eventually stayed and the rule takes effect for this year’s elections—as should occur—there is a grave risk that States may not have taken the necessary steps to comply, due to the false sense of latitude created by the court’s improper injunction, potentially depriving those States’ citizens of the ability to vote by mail,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a filing Sunday.

Under Talwani’s ruling, states can voluntarily comply with the agency’s new election mail regulations, which include altering the design of the envelopes in which they send voters ballots. In fact, North Carolina has complied with aspects of USPS’s new rule.

But Sauer has asserted that the voluntary compliance afforded by the order means noncompliant envelopes are being received by Post Offices around the country and reaching voters. 

“Once those ballot envelopes enter the mailstream, there is no retrieving them,” he wrote. 

If the Supreme Court lifts the district judge’s order, as he believes it should, USPS would in turn refuse to deliver or take other actions against those noncompliant envelopes, potentially disenfranchising voters, the solicitor general implied.

This is not a theoretical risk. Several states, including North Carolina and Wisconsin, have already sent out thousands of ballots, many of which could be noncompliant with USPS’s rule. 

Several other states are set to formally start sending their ballots in the coming weeks, including Michigan and New Jersey, which are among the 23 states and Washington, D.C., challenging USPS’s rule.

Sauer’s claim appears to weaken his argument for a stay of Talwani’s ruling, as the risk of disenfranchisement he alleged would only emerge if the Supreme Court grants his request. In the absence of a stay, voters could not be disenfranchised by USPS’s new rule.

The solicitor general also asserted that “each day the injunction is in place risks sowing confusion and chaos.” 

However, that argument also appears to weigh in favor of a rejection of the DOJ’s stay application, because, in reality, the chaos and confusion stemming from noncompliant mail ballots going undelivered — or worse — would only result from Talwani’s order being lifted. Moreover, three days have passed since he made that claim.

Notably, Sauer falsely stated who would be disenfranchising voters. He claimed states would be responsible because they would have failed to comply with the rule. But in practice, it would be USPS refusing to deliver ballots to eligible voters and potentially disenfranchising them.

If they don’t receive a mail ballot, many voters would likely still have a chance to cast a ballot at a polling place. But for many other people — especially the elderly and voters with disabilities — not being able to vote by mail means being disenfranchised.

Sauer’s claim is especially concerning when paired with the fact that USPS itself hasn’t provided states with the necessary tools to comply with its new regulations.

Under its rule, states are also required to give the postal agency a list of all voters — including their names and addresses — eligible to vote by mail in the upcoming election.

States are supposed to submit the lists through an online portal. Over a dozen days after USPS adopted the rule, however, the portal remains unavailable to states, meaning they couldn’t submit their mail voter lists even if they wanted to.

A whistleblower familiar with the development of the portal alleged last week that it and other aspects of USPS’s new rule remain untested and could lead to “catastrophic failure” if in place this November.

The USPS inspector general confirmed Tuesday that it is looking into the whistleblower’s claims.

Currently, the Court is still awaiting briefs from blue states and pro-voting groups challenging USPS’s new rule.

The new USPS rule stems from Trump’s sweeping March 2026 executive order, in which he ordered the agency to refuse to deliver ballots from states that do not comply with a series of new regulations he demanded.