2026年9月10日 美国东部时间下午1:19 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
作者：雅各布·罗森，司法部记者
杰克·罗森负责报道美国司法部。他此前曾是报道特朗普总统2024年竞选活动的竞选数字记者，还曾担任《玛格丽特·布伦南与媒体面对面》节目的助理制片人。
斯特凡·贝克特，数字政治主编
斯特凡·贝克特是CBSNews.com的政治主编。他从事全国政治报道已有十多年，负责监督报道白宫、国会、最高法院、移民和联邦执法的团队。
华盛顿讯 —— 联邦上诉法院驳回了特朗普政府要求解除下级法院禁令的请求，该禁令在中期选举前叫停了针对邮寄选票的新规则。这起已经上诉至最高法院的案件又添最新波折。
在周四发布的一份9页意见书中，第一巡回上诉法院的三名法官组成的合议庭表示，特朗普政府未能证明，正如本月早些时候一名下级法院法官所认定的那样，美国邮政服务局的新规则如果实施，不会在11月中期选举前引发“混乱和大规模选民被剥夺选举权”的情况。
“事实上，上诉人甚至没有认真质疑地区法院裁决的这一方面，更不用说证明该裁决为何明显错误了，”该合议庭写道，并补充道，与特朗普总统长期以来所称的邮寄投票存在大规模欺诈的说法相反，“没有案卷证据表明与11月3日选举相关的过去存在欺诈行为，也没有证据表明即将发生欺诈行为。”
法官们继续指出，如果新规则得以实施，它将“很可能导致全国数百万选民被剥夺选举权，而在打击选民欺诈方面所能带来的收益即使有也微乎其微。”
该合议庭由古斯塔沃·A·赫尔皮、朱莉·里克尔曼和塞思·阿夫拉莫夫三名法官组成，这三人均由乔·拜登总统任命至第一巡回上诉法院。
“上诉人未能证明其有权获得暂缓执行。最突出的是，上诉人未能有力证明地区法院认定最终规则可能违法的裁决存在错误，”该合议庭写道。“地区法院得出结论，我们也同意，最终规则很可能是一项关于国会议员选举举办方式的监管规定，而根据宪法选举条款，这一权力归各州和国会所有，而非未经国会授权的邮政服务局等行政机构。”
美国地区法官因迪拉·塔尔瓦尼上周发布了初步禁令，禁止邮政服务局执行该规则，而特朗普政府已向第一巡回上诉法院和最高法院提起上诉。最高法院尚未就政府请求暂缓执行该禁令的申请作出裁决。
塔尔瓦尼的裁决认定邮政服务局的要求可能违宪，并表示各州在临近11月选举之际实施这些规定所面临的困难“几乎肯定会导致符合资格的选民被大规模剥夺选举权”。
邮政服务局发布的最终规则要求各州和地方政府满足邮寄选票的设计要求，包括使用独特的条形码。它们还必须使用在线门户提交有关将通过邮寄方式投票的居民的信息，包括他们的姓名、地址和个性化条形码。
这些选民将在邮政服务局登记，并被纳入各州特定的“邮寄和缺席投票参与名单”。
该规则要求邮政工作人员审查和核实寄送给选民的选票邮件。邮政服务局表示，任何不符合这些要求的选票邮件“将不予接受，并将被退回选举办公室”。
上周末，特朗普政府第三次请求最高法院介入此案。周四在向法院提交的文件中，副检察长D.约翰·佐尔请求法院暂缓执行塔尔瓦尼的“毫无根据的禁令”，辩称新规则“是邮政服务局行使其法定明确权限，监管信封设计和收件人所需信息的合法行为”。
梅利莎·奎因对本报道亦有贡献。
Appeals court rejects Trump request to lift block on Postal Service rule for mail ballots
2026-09-10 1:19 PM EDT / CBS News
By Jacob Rosen, Justice Department Reporter
Jake Rosen is a reporter covering the Department of Justice. He was previously a campaign digital reporter covering President Trump’s 2024 campaign and also served as an associate producer for “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”
Stefan Becket, Managing Editor, Digital Politics
Stefan Becket is a managing editor of politics for CBSNews.com. Stefan has covered national politics for more than a decade and helps oversee a team covering the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, immigration and federal law enforcement.
Washington — A federal appeals court denied the Trump administration’s request to lift a lower court’s order that blocked new rules for mail ballots before the midterms, the latest twist in a case that has already reached the Supreme Court.
In a nine-page opinion issued Thursday, a three-judge appellate panel in the First Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Trump administration failed to show that the new rule from the U.S. Postal Service would not cause “chaos and widespread voter disenfranchisement” ahead of the November midterms if implemented, as a lower court judge found earlier this month.
“Indeed, appellants have not even seriously challenged this aspect of the district court’s ruling, much less demonstrated why it is clearly erroneous,” the appellate panel wrote, adding that, contrary to President Trump’s long-running claims of mass fraud in mail voting, “there is no record evidence of past fraud or a likelihood of impending fraud related to the November 3 election.”
The judges continued that if the new rule were to be implemented, it would “likely result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters across the country while providing minimal — if any — gains in combating voter fraud.”
The panel consisted of Judges Gustavo A. Gelpí, Julie Rikelman and Seth Aframe, all of whom were appointed to the First Circuit by President Joe Biden.
“Appellants have not demonstrated entitlement to a stay. Most prominently, appellants have not made a strong showing that the district court erred in determining that the Final Rule is likely unlawful,” the panel wrote. “The district court concluded, and we agree, that the Final Rule is likely a regulation of the manner of holding elections for members of Congress, which the Elections Clause of the Constitution assigns to the States and Congress, and not to an executive agency, such as the Postal Service, acting without congressional authorization.”
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction barring the Postal Service from enforcing the rule last week, and the administration appealed to both the First Circuit and the Supreme Court. The high court has yet to rule on the administration’s request for a stay of the injunction.
Talwani’s ruling found that the Postal Service’s requirements are likely unconstitutional and said states’ difficulties with implementing the regulations so close to the November elections “nearly guarantee[s] significant disenfranchisement for eligible voters.”
The final rule issued by the Postal Service requires states and localities to meet design requirements for mail ballots, including unique barcodes. They must also use an online portal to submit information about residents who will vote by mail, including their names, addresses and individualized barcodes.
Those voters will be enrolled with the Postal Service and included on state-specific “Mail-In and Absentee Participation Lists.”
The rule requires postal workers to review and verify ballot mail being sent to voters. Any ballot mailings that don’t comply with the requirements “will not be accepted and will be returned” to the election offices, the Postal Service said.
Over the weekend, the Trump administration for the third time asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the case. In filings with the court on Thursday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the court to stay Talwani’s “baseless injunction,” arguing the new rule “is a lawful exercise of USPS’s express statutory authority to regulate the design of envelopes and the information needed about addressees.”
Melissa Quinn contributed to this report.
发表回复