Can the Postal Service Reject Your Ballot? The USPS Mail Ballot Rule, the Whistleblower, and the Court Order
The USPS mail ballot rule is about to collide with the election calendar. On September 4, North Carolina mails the first ballots of the 2026 midterms. At the same time, the Postal Service is building a system that, by its own design, can reject mail ballots before they are delivered. Here is what is happening, why a federal judge has blocked parts of it, and what voters can do now.
What the Executive Order and the Rule Require
In March, the President signed Executive Order 14399 (Mar. 31, 2026, 91 Fed. Reg. 17125). It directs the Postal Service to write a rule barring delivery of a mail ballot unless the voter appears on a list the state files with the Postal Service.
In August, the Postal Service finalized that rule, "Ballot Mail for Federal Elections," 91 Fed. Reg. 54966 (Aug. 26, 2026), along with a brand-new verification portal. If a ballot does not match the state's list, it is rejected and sent back.
What the Whistleblower Told Congress
A federal official then made a whistleblower disclosure to Congress, released by Senator Blumenthal on September 1. According to the disclosure, work on the portal began June 15, and leadership demanded a launch by September 1. The whistleblower reported no clear written requirements and only four work days of testing.
The most consequential claim: if a single barcode in a batch of ten thousand ballots fails to scan, the whistleblower says the entire batch is returned to the state. The whistleblower also reported that postal officials described the process with a two-word phrase whose second word was "show."
The postal workers who would have to run the system say they have not been trained. In the words of their union, the American Postal Workers Union: "Our job is to deliver America's mail, not to decide who can receive mail."
The Legal Problem
Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution assigns the times, places, and manner of federal elections to the states, with Congress empowered to alter those rules. The President is not part of that sentence.
In League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump and California v. USPS, in the District of Massachusetts, Judge Indira Talwani issued a temporary restraining order on August 27 blocking the mandatory parts of the rule through September 10. She wrote that "the record continues to lack any evidence regarding fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting." In a separate August 25 order, she found that the Postal Service had violated her earlier preliminary injunction by issuing the rule at all. A stay ruling from the First Circuit is pending and could come any day.
This Is Not a Red-Versus-Blue Issue
When the Supreme Court paused an earlier ruling, the President called it "a great ruling for the Republican Party." He has voted by mail twice this year. Meanwhile, Utah's Republican Lieutenant Governor has said that if the block is lifted, the result will be "an unmitigated disaster," and the chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission stated in a sworn declaration that compliance would be "virtually impossible." Election officials across the political spectrum are raising the same alarm.
Dates to Watch
September 4: the Inspector General has been asked to confirm an investigation. September 10: the temporary restraining order lapses unless extended. The First Circuit's stay ruling is pending.
Practical Takeaway
Request your ballot early. Track it. Have a backup plan to vote in person if your ballot does not arrive or you are unsure it was delivered. And do not let anyone scare you out of voting. Confusion and fear are not reasons to sit out; they are reasons to plan ahead.
For postal employees caught in the middle of this, the whistleblower disclosure is a reminder that federal law protects employees who report mismanagement or legal violations to Congress and inspectors general. If you are facing pressure or retaliation for speaking up, Southworth PC represents federal employees nationwide. Stay informed on stories like this one through our free newsletter.
Legal Disclaimer: This content is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Federal employment situations are fact-specific and time-sensitive. Please consult a qualified federal employment attorney about your specific situation. You can contact Southworth PC at attorneysforfederalemployees.com.