Postmaster General Says USPS Stopped Building Mail-Ballot Barcode System After Supreme Court Left Injunction in Place
David Steiner told the Associated Press on Sept. 17 that work halted on the voter-data portal and barcode system from President Trump's March executive order, three days after the Supreme Court declined to lift a lower-court block.
USPS Chief Confirms: The Ballot Barcode System Is On Hold
Postmaster General David Steiner gave a one-line answer when the Associated Press asked him on Thursday, Sept. 17, about the computer system meant to track every mail ballot in America. "There's an injunction, so we're not doing anything," he said at Postal Service headquarters in Washington[1].
That system, a national online portal paired with new barcoded envelopes, was the center of President Trump's push to change how mail voting works. A memo sent to all Postal Service employees the day before Steiner's comment said the agency will "not be enforcing any of these new rules in the 2026 federal election"[1]. For a fight that has run through a presidential order, a federal rule, and now the Supreme Court, this is where things stand three days after the justices weighed in.
But Steiner added something that complicates the simple story. USPS will keep recommending the same envelopes and barcodes going forward, he said, and mailers who skip them "may have to pay more" in postage[1]. Stopping the build is not the same as dropping the idea.
What the Rule Actually Would Have Done
The chain starts on March 31, 2026, when Trump signed an executive order directing changes to mail-ballot handling[6]. The Postal Service turned that into a formal rule, "Ballot Mail for Federal Elections," published in the Federal Register on Aug. 26[4].
The rule required three things. Every federal-election ballot envelope needed the official Election Mail logo and a design that automated sorting machines could read. Each envelope also needed a unique barcode. And states would have had to register every mail voter through a new national online portal, so USPS could match each ballot to a name on that list[4][11]. Mail that didn't comply could be refused[4][11].
That barcode piece is not new by itself. Many local election offices already use similar Intelligent Mail barcodes voluntarily to track ballots in transit[4]. What was new was the mandate: a federal list of who's getting a mail ballot, a required envelope format, and the power to reject noncompliant mail.
Courts moved fast. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts issued a series of orders blocking the plan, including on June 25 and Aug. 11, and a 14-day restraining order on Aug. 27 that covered most of the rule[11]. She found the plan amounted to an unconstitutional attempt to take election authority away from the states[2][10].
Two Facts That Don't Fit Together
Here is the tension at the heart of this story. The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority that includes three Trump appointees, declined on Monday, Sept. 14, to let the rule take effect[3]. Yet the same order was not a ruling that the rule is illegal — it only said the government is "unlikely to succeed on the merits" of its case[3][9].
That distinction matters more than it sounds. A stay denial keeps the lower court's block in place while the underlying lawsuit continues. It is a prediction about who is likely to win, not a final verdict. The rule and Trump's executive order both remain on the books[3].
The order was also not unanimous. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing that some of the challengers lacked legal standing to sue and that the Postal Service has broad statutory authority to set mailing requirements[3]. That means the underlying legal fight is genuinely live — seven justices sided against the administration for now, but two justices went on record backing its core argument.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh gave the administration something too, even while voting against it. He wrote separately that USPS likely does have the legal power to set ballot-mail standards like these. His objection was about timing: rolling the rule out weeks before a live election didn't give state officials enough time to comply under federal rulemaking law[7]. That reading — a loss on the calendar, not on the principle — is why the fight over 2028 is far from settled.
Why a Mail Carrier and a State Both Think They're In Charge
Strip away the litigation, and the dispute is about who gets to write the rules for how Americans vote. The Constitution's Elections Clause gives that job to the states, with Congress able to override them. A mail carrier is not named in that clause, and that's the core of Judge Talwani's ruling[2][10].
The counter-argument is that USPS isn't writing election law at all — it's writing mail-handling rules, something it has always had the power to do for envelope sizes, formats, and automation standards[4]. A ballot mailed through the Postal Service, in this view, is still just mail, and a uniform envelope with a traceable barcode is a shipping requirement, not a voting requirement. The executive order itself framed the barcodes as a way to confirm "that only citizens receive and cast ballots"[4].
Democratic attorneys general from 24 states and the District of Columbia, joined by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, sued to block the rule; about a dozen Republican attorneys general backed it alongside the Justice Department[10]. Their strongest point in court was practical rather than constitutional: the rule arrived with no evidence of the mail-ballot fraud it claimed to address. Judge Talwani wrote that the record included no such evidence and called it an "unsubstantiated problem"[6][10].
State and county election officials, regardless of party, raised a separate concern that had nothing to do with motive. Ballots for military and overseas voters go out on fixed federal deadlines, and envelopes are printed months in advance. A rule published Aug. 26 for a November election gave almost no room to adjust printing contracts or build new data-reporting systems, even for officials who liked the idea[5][11]. Al Jazeera reported that election officials were bracing for disruption in the run-up to the midterms before the court stepped in[5].
The Postal Service's Careful Middle Path
USPS itself sits between all these pressures. It answers to a sitting president, is bound by federal court orders, and has to avoid looking like a partisan actor in the middle of an election. Steiner's answer to the AP threads that needle: halt the build because of the injunction, but keep pushing the same envelope standards as a matter of mail policy rather than a legal mandate[1].
That last piece is the one worth watching. Postage pricing runs through a different regulatory process than this ballot rule did. If USPS can nudge election offices toward the same barcodes and envelope formats by charging more for mail that skips them, it could reach a similar result without needing the enjoined rule at all[1].
How the Story Got Told Differently Across the Spectrum
Coverage of the Sept. 14 order split along predictable lines, though not always the ones you'd expect. Axios's headline, "Supreme Court strikes down USPS mail-in voting rule," overstated what happened — the Court denied a stay, it didn't invalidate anything[8]. NPR's framing, "rejects Trump's mail voting restrictions for this year's midterms," used the challengers' preferred word for the rule but got the time-limited scope right[9].
On the right, the Washington Examiner's editorial board wrote that "Brett Kavanaugh gets Trump's mail ballot rules right," building almost entirely around his concurrence while leaving Talwani's constitutional ruling nearly unmentioned[7]. The Washington Times, notably, reported the loss plainly and even called it "a major blow," centering the administration's lack of courtroom fraud evidence — an unusual choice for a right-leaning paper[6].
On the left, Democracy Docket, a litigation-advocacy site founded by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, ran with "In major win for voters, judge blocks Trump's mail voting restrictions for midterms" — treating one side's win as synonymous with voters' interests generally[10]. Al Jazeera framed the story around "the conservative-majority court" refusing a Republican president, paired with reporting on officials "preparing for chaos," an American-institutional-stress angle more than a narrow legal one[5].
For this year's ballots, the practical result is simple: mail voting proceeds under the rules states already had. What happens with the underlying lawsuit, and whether a redesigned version of the rule resurfaces with more lead time before 2028, is still an open question neither the injunction nor Steiner's comments answered.
Summary
The head of the U.S. Postal Service says the agency has stopped building the computer system at the center of President Trump's push to change mail voting. Postmaster General David Steiner told the Associated Press on Thursday, Sept. 17
The Event
On Thursday, Sept. 17, 2026, Postmaster General David Steiner told the Associated Press at Postal Service headquarters in Washington that the agency had stopped developing the voter-data and barcode tracking system tied to President Trump's mail-voting executive order, saying, "There's an injunction, so we're not doing anything."[1] A memo sent to all Postal Service employees the day before said the agency will "not be enforcing any of these new rules in the 2026 federal election."[1] The statements came three days after the Supreme Court, in an unsigned order issued Monday evening, Sept. 14, declined to let USPS carry out parts of its ballot-mail rule while litigation continues[3][9]. Steiner also said the Postal Service would continue to encourage approved envelopes and barcodes in future elections, without requiring them[1].
Undisputed Facts
- Trump signed an executive order on March 31, 2026, directing changes to how mail ballots are handled in federal elections[6].
- The Postal Service issued a final rule, "Ballot Mail for Federal Elections," published in the Federal Register on Aug. 26, 2026, amending its Domestic Mail Manual[4].
- The rule required federal-election ballot envelopes to carry the official Election Mail logo, be automation compatible, and carry unique barcodes, and it created a national online portal where state election officials would register every voter receiving a mail ballot[4][11].
- U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts issued orders blocking the plan, including on June 25 and Aug. 11, 2026, and a 14-day restraining order on Aug. 27 covering most sections of the rule[11].
- The challengers included the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and Democratic attorneys general from 24 states and the District of Columbia; about a dozen Republican attorneys general backed the rule alongside the Justice Department[10].
- On Sept. 14, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a brief unsigned order in Postal Service v. California (No. 26A305) denying the administration's request, stating the government "is unlikely to succeed on the merits" of its challenge to the preliminary injunction[3][9].
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted against the administration but wrote separately that the Postal Service may have statutory authority for such a rule, and that the defect was implementing it too late under the Administrative Procedure Act[7].
- Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the Sept. 14 order, joined by Justice Thomas, arguing that some challengers lacked standing, that others pursued a claim the Court has called a "Hail Mary pass" that "rarely succeeds," and that the government had shown grounds for a stay because USPS has broad statutory authority to set mailing requirements[3].
- Steiner said on Sept. 17 that USPS will still recommend the approved envelopes and barcodes in later elections, and that those who do not use them may face higher postage costs[1].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- The calendar is the real constraint
- Ballots for military and overseas voters go out on fixed federal deadlines, and envelopes are printed months ahead. A rule published Aug. 26 for a November election cannot be absorbed even by officials who like it. Kavanaugh's concurrence turned on exactly this[4][7].
- Who sets election rules
- The Elections Clause assigns times, places and manner to states and Congress. Talwani held the plan took that power from the states[2][10]. The counter-theory is that USPS is regulating mail, not elections — and that theory has not yet been decided on the merits, and drew an explicit dissent from Justices Alito and Thomas on Sept. 14[3][7].
- A stay denial is not a final ruling
- The Sept. 14 order only said the government is "unlikely to succeed"[3]. Nothing in it stops USPS from re-proposing the same standards with more lead time before 2028.
- Standards can travel through price instead of mandate
- Steiner said USPS will keep recommending the envelopes and barcodes, and that those who skip them "may have to pay more"[1]. Postage rates are set through a different process than this rule, so much of the same result could be pursued without the enjoined mandate.
Material realityFor the November 2026 midterms, mail ballots will go out under the rules states already use. USPS says it will not enforce the new requirements this cycle, and the portal and barcode system are unbuilt[1][3]. Intelligent Mail barcodes themselves are not new or contested — many jurisdictions already use them voluntarily to track ballots[4]. What was new, and what is stopped, was the mandate: a federal list of mail voters, a required envelope design, and USPS authority to refuse non-compliant ballot mail[4][11]. The Sept. 14 order denying a stay was not unanimous: Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, arguing some plaintiffs lacked standing and that USPS's mailing authority supported the administration[3]. The merits litigation continues, and both the executive order and the published rule remain on the books.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asMail is the Postal Service's business, and it has always set standards for what it will carry — sizes, formats, barcodes, automation. A ballot mailed through USPS is still mail. Setting a uniform envelope and a unique barcode is not a voting rule; it is a mailing rule, and it makes every ballot traceable from the county clerk to the voter and back. The executive order's own text says unique envelope identifiers "enable confirmation that only citizens receive and cast ballots, reducing the risk of fraud and protecting the integrity of Federal elections"[4]. Supporters add that Kavanaugh's separate writing shows the legal theory is live: the Court did not say USPS lacks the power, only that the timing was bad for 2026[7]. They also point to Justice Alito's dissent, joined by Justice Thomas, which argued some challengers lacked standing and that USPS's mailing authority independently supported a stay — evidence the 7-2 outcome was closer, and more legally contested, than a unanimous rebuke[3].
WhyDeliver on a signature election-administration promise, and establish that a federal agency can set conditions on election mail — a precedent that would outlast this election cycle[6].
Impact on themThe build is stopped and the rule will not apply in November 2026[1]. The administration retains the option to litigate the merits and re-propose the rule on a longer runway before 2028, which is the path Kavanaugh's concurrence points toward[7].
Frames it asThe Constitution's Elections Clause gives states, with Congress, the job of setting the times, places and manner of federal elections. A mail carrier is not on that list. Their strongest specific point in court: the administration never produced evidence of the mail-ballot fraud the order says it is fixing, and Judge Talwani described it as an "unsubstantiated problem"[6][10]. They also argue the practical harm was immediate and concrete — the rule landed weeks before ballots go out, so counties would have had to reprint envelopes and build data feeds they had no time or money to build, and any ballot USPS refused was a voter who did not get one[11].
WhyKeep control of election administration in state hands and protect a mail-voting system their voters use heavily, while blocking a federal chokepoint on ballot delivery[10].
Impact on themThey won the practical outcome for 2026: states send mail ballots as before[5]. But the win is procedural, not final — the underlying merits case continues, and two justices publicly dissented, so they must litigate again.
Frames it asWhatever the legal theory, administration runs on calendars. Ballots to military and overseas voters go out on a federal deadline. Envelopes are printed months ahead. A rule that changes envelope design and adds a national data-reporting duty after those steps are underway cannot be absorbed. Officials also note they already use Intelligent Mail barcodes voluntarily to track ballots — the fight is over being ordered to, and over handing voter lists to a federal agency[4][11].
WhyCertainty. They need one set of rules that does not move once ballots are printed[5].
Impact on themAl Jazeera reported election officials were preparing for disruption in the run-up to the midterms[5]. The Sept. 14 order and the Sept. 16 USPS memo remove that uncertainty for this cycle[1][3].
Frames it asUSPS leadership has to serve a sitting president's directive, obey federal courts, and avoid being cast as a partisan actor in an election — all at once. Steiner's answer threads it: stop building while enjoined, keep recommending the standards on the merits as a mail-handling matter, and do not require them[1].
WhyProtect the agency's reputation for neutral delivery, which is its core asset, while not defying either the White House or the courts[1].
Impact on themDevelopment money and staff time already spent on the portal are idle. Steiner's note that non-compliant mailers "may have to pay more" signals USPS may pursue the same envelope standards through pricing rather than mandate — a path that does not need this rule[1].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.9
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Press | U.S. center / wire | 3 | "Postal Service chief says work stopped on computer system key to Trump effort to limit mail voting." | The phrase "effort to limit mail voting" states the order's effect as settled in the outlet's own voice; supporters call it a tracking and verification effort. The story does carry Steiner's caveat that USPS will still encourage barcodes. |
| The Washington Times | U.S. right | 3 | "Supreme Court won't let Trump use post office to block mailed ballots." | Frames the loss accurately and even calls it "a major blow," but centers the administration's failure to produce fraud evidence — unusual placement for a right-leaning paper, and a sign the newsroom is reporting the record rather than the cause. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 4 | "US Supreme Court rejects Trump's plans on postal ballots: Why it matters." | Foregrounds "the conservative-majority court" refusing a Republican president and pairs the story with coverage of officials "preparing for chaos" — an American-instability frame rather than an administrative-law one. |
| NPR | U.S. center-left, publicly and donor funded | 4 | "The Supreme Court rejects Trump's mail voting restrictions for this year's midterms." | "Restrictions" adopts the challengers' noun for the rule; the "for this year's midterms" qualifier is accurate and is the piece's strongest neutrality feature. |
| Axios | U.S. center | 5 | "Supreme Court strikes down USPS mail-in voting rule." | "Strikes down" is wrong on the posture. The Court denied a stay and said the government is unlikely to win — the rule was not invalidated and the merits case continues[3]. |
| Washington Examiner (Opinion) | U.S. right, editorial board | 7 | "Brett Kavanaugh gets Trump's mail ballot rules right." | Converts a defeat into a roadmap: the emphasis falls entirely on Kavanaugh's view that USPS may have the authority, while Talwani's constitutional holding goes nearly unmentioned. |
| Democracy Docket | U.S. left, founded by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias | 8 | "In major win for voters, judge blocks Trump's mail voting restrictions for midterms." | "Win for voters" treats one side of the case as the voters' side. The site is a litigation-advocacy outlet, not a newsroom, and its sourcing overlaps with the plaintiffs it covers. |
References
- Postal Service chief says work stopped on computer system key to Trump effort to limit mail voting — Associated Press · U.S. center, nonprofit member cooperative wire service
- Supreme Court blocks Trump's proposed mail ballot restrictions for 2026 election — Votebeat · U.S. nonprofit election-administration newsroom, philanthropically funded
- Supreme Court denies Trump administration's request to implement parts of USPS rule on mail-in voting — SCOTUSblog · U.S. court-focused legal blog, historically sponsored by a Supreme Court litigation practice
- Ballot Mail for Federal Elections (final rule, 39 CFR Part 111) — Federal Register / U.S. Postal Service · U.S. government primary source
- US Supreme Court rejects Trump's plans on postal ballots: Why it matters — Al Jazeera · Qatari state-funded international broadcaster
- Supreme Court won't let Trump use post office to block mailed ballots — The Washington Times · U.S. right-leaning daily
- Brett Kavanaugh gets Trump's mail ballot rules right — Washington Examiner · U.S. right-leaning, editorial board opinion
- Supreme Court strikes down USPS mail-in voting rule — Axios · U.S. center, for-profit digital outlet
- The Supreme Court rejects Trump's mail voting restrictions for this year's midterms — NPR · U.S. center-left public radio, member- and donor-funded
- In major win for voters, judge blocks Trump's mail voting restrictions for midterms — Democracy Docket · U.S. left, litigation-advocacy site founded by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias
- USPS Ballot Mail Rule: Overview and Potential Impact (IF13297) — Congressional Research Service · U.S. congressional nonpartisan research agency