2026年8月27日 / 美国东部时间晚上10:31 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯——一名联邦法官周四临时阻止美国邮政署执行其针对11月中期选举的邮寄投票新要求。
美国地区法官英迪拉·塔尔瓦尼下达的这项命令是特朗普总统在11月选举前收紧邮寄投票规则的法律斗争中的最新进展。本周，最高法院叫停了另一起案件中的裁决，该案原本阻止特朗普政府实施旨在限制邮寄投票的行政令中的相关条款，此后这场斗争进一步升级。
就在最高法院作出该裁决后，由24个州和哥伦比亚特区组成的团体于周三提起新诉讼，试图叫停美国邮政署上周发布的、针对即将到来的联邦选举的邮寄投票新规。一群投票权组织也对这项应特朗普行政令要求出台的新要求提出了质疑。
这些州和投票权组织辩称，国会并未授予美国邮政署制定联邦选举或邮寄投票规则的权力。原告方表示，宪法实际上赋予各州管理选举的权力。
塔尔瓦尼同意暂停执行该邮政署新规中几项关键条款，暂停期限为14天。此次中期选举将决定哪个政党控制参众两院。
“根据目前提交法庭的记录，原告各州面临无法挽回的损害：如果它们被迫遵守一项很可能违宪的规定，而针对2026年中期选举，遵守该规定实际上已无可能——距离选举如今只剩两个多月时间，”塔尔瓦尼在长达11页的裁决书中写道。“大多数原告州已经印制了邮寄选票，部分州根据州法律最早将于下周开始向合格选民寄送选票。”
她补充道，各州“既没有时间也没有资金在中期选举前完成所有事项：设计新的邮寄选票、寻求新设计的审批、订购邮寄选票印刷品、更新各自的选举管理系统、培训选举官员使用美国邮政署的在线门户，以及将选民数据上传至该门户”。
塔尔瓦尼表示，国会并未授权美国邮政署监管选举邮件。她认定，原告各州关于该机构无权发布这项新规的主张很可能在实质层面胜诉，法官称该新规很可能违宪。
“如果原告各州无法遵守这项最终规定——考虑到时间框架，这一结果似乎不可避免——它们将违反宪法和州法律中关于管理选举的义务，”这位任职于波士顿的联邦法官写道。
美国司法部很可能会对这一裁决提起上诉，而针对邮寄投票新限制的诉讼可能会被提交至最高法院。
作为提起诉讼的24位州总检察长之一的纽约州总检察长莱蒂夏·詹姆斯，在塔尔瓦尼下达裁决后批评了这项新规定。
“这项规定明显是联邦政府试图干预其无权管控的选举的企图，”她在一份声明中说道。“今天，联邦法院在本届政府破坏我们的选举之前叫停了它。”
这场争端源于特朗普今年3月签署的一项行政令，该命令试图限制邮寄投票。特朗普总统频繁声称邮寄投票会导致大规模舞弊，但他并未拿出相关证据支持自己的说法。
该行政令要求国土安全部编制“州公民身份名单”，列出符合投票资格的已确认美国公民，并指示总检察长优先调查和起诉为不符合投票资格者发放选票的选举官员。
但这些诉讼的核心是美国邮政署的最终新规，该规则为邮寄选票信封设定了设计要求，包括可追踪的条形码，并要求州选举官员通过在线门户提交预期邮寄选票收件人的名单。美国邮政署随后将把这些信息整理成各州专属的“邮寄和缺席投票参与名单”。
该机构在新规中表示，它“不会在确定选民资格、维护选民名册或计票方面发挥任何作用”。
周一的最高法院裁决涉及23个民主党领导的州此前提起的一起诉讼，这些州试图叫停特朗普的行政令。尽管最高法院支持特朗普政府，但该裁决是程序性的，最高法院并未就特朗普试图实施的邮寄投票限制的实质问题作出裁决。相反，最高法院的保守派多数派认为，各州提起诉讼的时机尚不成熟。
随着11月中期选举临近，美国邮政署推出了新的要求，留给各州的实施时间寥寥无几。北卡罗来纳州将于9月4日开始向军事人员和海外选民邮寄选票，其他几个州也将在9月中旬开始提供邮寄选票。
各州在诉讼中警告称，这项新规将导致选举官员“在短短几周内、资源有限的情况下，完成多项艰巨任务，每一项都必要应对新规带来的 disruption”。
如果不被叫停，“这项新规将挫败甚至彻底阻止原告各州在11月管理邮寄投票项目，并且可预见地会剥夺邮寄投票选民的投票权。事实上，这似乎正是总统所希望的，”州官员们说道。
但美国司法部律师在法庭上辩称，该新规仅对寄送联邦邮寄选票的州和地方政府提出了“适度的信息要求”，并辩称各州仍保留对本州选举管理的控制权。
“这项新规没有取代任何一项州选举法律。它也不必也不应该阻止任何一名选民通过邮寄方式投票，”他们说道。
美国司法部警告称，如果这项新规被临时叫停，之后又在11月中期选举前生效，各州和美国邮政署实施新规的时间将更加紧迫。
“[T]his is ultimately a regulation of the U.S. mail, and a modest one at that — not a federal takeover of election administration by the Postal Service,” 政府律师写道。
Judge temporarily blocks new Postal Service rules for mail voting
August 27, 2026 / 10:31 PM EDT / CBS News
Washington — A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing its new requirements for mail voting for the November midterm elections.
The order from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani is the latest development in the legal battle over President Trump’s efforts to tighten the rules for mail voting ahead of the November elections. That fight escalated this week, after the Supreme Court halted a decision in a different case that had blocked the Trump administration from implementing provisions of an executive order that aims to restrict mail voting.
On the heels of that ruling from the nation’s highest court, a group of two dozen states and the District of Columbia filed a new lawsuit Wednesday seeking to block the new rule from the Postal Service, published last week, that regulates mail voting for the upcoming federal elections. A coalition of voting rights groups also challenged the new requirements, which were issued in response to Mr. Trump’s executive order.
The states and voting rights groups argued that Congress has not given the Postal Service the authority to set the rules for federal elections or mail voting. Instead, the Constitution gives states the power to administer elections, the challengers said.
For 14 days, Talwani agreed to halt enforcement of several key provisions of the Postal Service’s rule for the upcoming elections, which will determine which party controls the House and Senate.
“Based on the record presently before the court, Plaintiff States face irreparable harm where they are required to comply with a likely unconstitutional regulation for which compliance is practically impossible as to the 2026 midterm elections, now little more than two months away,” Talwani wrote in her 11-page order. “Most Plaintiff States have already ordered their mail ballots, and some are required by state law to send them to eligible voters as early as next week.”
The states, she continued, “have neither time nor funds to design new mail ballots, seek approval of the new designs, order production of mail ballots, update their own election management systems, train election officials to use the USPS portal, and upload citizen data to the portal, all before the midterms.”
Talwani said Congress did not delegate authority to the Postal Service to regulate election mail. She found that the states are likely to succeed on the merits of their arguments that the agency lacked authority to issue the rule, which the judge said is likely unconstitutional.
“If Plaintiff States are unable to comply with the Final Rule, an outcome that seems unavoidable given the timeframe, they will violate their obligations under the Constitution and State laws to administer elections,” the Boston-based federal judge wrote.
The Justice Department is likely to appeal the decision, and the challenge to the new restrictions for mail voting could land before the Supreme Court.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was among the 24 attorneys general suing, criticized the new regulations in response to Talwani’s order.
“This rule is a clear attempt by the federal government to interfere in elections it has no power to control,” she said in a statement. “Today, a federal court halted it before this administration could wreak havoc on our elections. “
The dispute arose out of an executive order Mr. Trump signed in March that sought to restrict mail voting, which the president frequently claims leads to widespread fraud, though he has not put forth evidence in support of his claims.
The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile “State Citizenship Lists” of confirmed U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote and instructs the attorney general to prioritize investigations and prosecutions against election officials who issue ballots of people ineligible to vote.
But at the center of these lawsuits is the Postal Service’s final rule that establishes design requirements for mail ballot envelopes, including trackable barcodes, and requires state election officials to submit to an online portal lists of intended mail-ballot recipients. The Postal Service will then compile that information into state-specific “Mail-In and Absentee Participation Lists.”
The agency said in the rule that it “will not play any role in determining voter eligibility, maintaining voter rolls, or counting ballots.”
Monday’s Supreme Court ruling involved an earlier lawsuit filed by 23 Democratic-led states that sought to block Mr. Trump’s executive order. While the high court sided with the Trump administration, its decision was procedural, and the high court did not rule on the merits of the mail-in ballot restrictions that Mr. Trump is seeking to impose. Instead, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said the states had brought their lawsuit too early.
The Postal Service rolled out its new requirements with the November midterms quickly approaching, leaving states with little time to implement them. North Carolina will begin sending mail ballots to military and overseas voters Sept. 4, and several other states will start making them available in mid-September.
The states had warned in their lawsuit that as a result of the measure, election officials had to “accomplish multiple Herculean tasks, each necessary to address the disruption caused by the Rule, in a matter of weeks, with limited resources.”
If not blocked, “the Rule will frustrate or outright prevent Plaintiff States from administering their mail voting programs in November and foreseeably disenfranchise voters who vote by mail. Indeed, this seems to be what the President prefers,” state officials said.
But Justice Department lawyers told the court that the rule makes only “modest informational requirements on” states and localities sending federal mail ballots and argued states retain control over the administration of their elections.
“The Rule does not displace a single State election law. And it need not and should not prevent a single voter from voting by mail,” they said.
The Justice Department warned that if the rule were temporarily blocked, and then allowed to take effect before the November midterms, the states and the Postal Service would be even more rushed to implement it.
“[T]his is ultimately a regulation of the U.S. mail, and a modest one at that — not a federal takeover of election administration by the Postal Service,” government lawyers wrote.