USPS rule advancing Trump’s mail-voting attack violates settlement, NAACP alleges

The NAACP asked a federal court Wednesday to stop the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing a Trump-backed rule that could block eligible voters from receiving mail-in ballots — arguing the plan violates a court-enforced settlement that requires USPS to prioritize election mail through 2028.

The filing comes after USPS posted a draft rule on May 29 aimed at implementing President Donald Trump’s March executive order restricting mail voting, which is the subject of multiple lawsuits.

The motion was filed in a case the NAACP brought against USPS in 2020, when widespread mail delays threatened voters’ ability to cast ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic. A 2021 settlement required USPS to safeguard mail-in voting in future federal elections — including by prioritizing the timely delivery of election mail through 2028.

Now, the NAACP claims that in working to implement Trump’s order, USPS is violating the pact.

“The Proposed Rule manifests USPS’s intent not to deliver certain mail-in ballots,” the NAACP wrote. “[The Proposed Rule] sets forth requirements and procedures that would violate its obligations under the Agreement.”

The stakes are immediate. 

The NAACP warned that election officials are already preparing for the 2026 election cycle, and that the proposed rule could sow confusion among USPS workers, state and local officials and voters.

“This matter is time sensitive,” the NAACP wrote. “The comment period on the USPS’s Proposed Rule ends by July 2, 2026; the President has directed USPS to finalize it expeditiously, and the 2026 general election cycle is imminent.” 

Trump’s order directed USPS to create new procedures for mail-in ballots in federal elections. Under the proposal, states would have to submit lists of voters who requested mail-in or absentee ballots, along with barcode information tied to those ballots. USPS would then use those lists to decide whether to transmit ballot mail.

If a voter is not on the list, or if a state does not comply with the new requirements, USPS could refuse to deliver the ballot.

The NAACP argues that would transform USPS from a mail delivery agency into a gatekeeper for voting — one that could prevent eligible voters from receiving ballots they are entitled to under law.

“In the Agreement, USPS made a judicially enforceable commitment to ‘prioritiz[e] . . . the timely delivery of Election Mail’ for every national election through 2028,” the NAACP wrote. “Now, as directed by an Executive Order issued by President Trump on March 31, 2026, USPS plans to displace that understanding and USPS’s commitment.”

The filing also warns that the rule could have sweeping consequences if implemented, particularly because voter lists submitted weeks before Election Day could be incomplete or inaccurate. The NAACP says the result could be eligible voters being denied ballots through no fault of their own.

“And implementation of the Proposed Rule would threaten to prevent millions of eligible voters from receiving mail-in ballots to which they are entitled,” the NAACP wrote. “USPS is obligated by the Agreement, this Court’s Order, and federal law to make its best efforts to deliver.”

The motion asks the court to declare that the proposed rule violates the 2021 settlement and to issue an injunction — a court order blocking USPS from implementing the rule.

The 2021 settlement grew out of one of the most consequential voting rights fights of the 2020 election. At the time, USPS policy changes and mail delays raised alarm that ballots could arrive too late to be counted. 

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ultimately oversaw emergency proceedings to ensure election mail moved through the system, and USPS later agreed to maintain protections for future elections.

The NAACP says Trump’s new rule would unravel that promise.

“Neither the Agreement nor USPS’s obligation to ‘timely deliver Election Mail’ permits USPS to pick and choose which ballots to deliver and which to discard,” the NAACP wrote. “Such picking and choosing is inconsistent with both paragraph 2 and the entire purpose of the Agreement.”

The group asked the court to act quickly, requesting a ruling by June 22.