On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a temporary order allowing the Postal Service to move forward with a proposed rule requiring states to verify voter registration data before mailing federal election ballots. A three-judge panel, ruling per curiam, granted USPS's request to stay a district court injunction that had blocked the rule earlier this month in a lawsuit brought by the NAACP.

The panel decided the challenge was premature since the rule remains in proposed form, and it found the measure unlikely to violate the 2021 agreement obligating USPS to prioritize timely delivery of election mail through 2028.

The D.C. Circuit granted a stay pending appeal, ruling that the appellants had met the "stringent requirements" required to pause the lower court's order while the case proceeds. In its order, the court wrote that the appellants "have made a strong showing that they will likely succeed on two of their arguments."

The rule traces back to Executive Order 14399, signed March 31, 2026, which directed federal agencies to compile and share state-by-state "citizenship lists" of eligible U.S. citizens using federal databases, to help states verify that only citizens vote in federal elections. It instructs the U.S. Postal Service to tighten rules and tracking for mail-in and absentee ballots, including rejecting ballots from people who are not on these federal-state eligibility lists or otherwise properly enrolled for mail voting. It also directs the Department of Justice to prioritize enforcement of federal election laws against officials who provide ballots to ineligible voters and to use the threat of withholding federal election funds to pressure states to comply with these new verification measures.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan blocked the Postal Service from implementing the rule on July 1, siding with the NAACP's argument that it conflicted with the 2021 settlement. That is the order the D.C. Circuit paused on Friday. A separate injunction, issued in June by a federal judge in Massachusetts in a suit brought by 23 states, continues to block the executive order in those jurisdictions and is unaffected by Friday's ruling.

The judges first found that the proposed rule was "likely neither constitutionally nor prudentially ripe for review." The court also concluded that, even if the proposed rule were ultimately adopted, it likely would not violate the terms of the parties' settlement agreement. The appeals court also found that the appellants had demonstrated they would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were denied. Without a stay, the court said, the lower court's injunction "will render [them] unable" to "issue and implement a final rule in advance of the November 2026 general election." The court also emphasized the timing concerns surrounding the election, stating, "there can be no do over once the election occurs."

Finally, the panel determined that any potential harm to the opposing party or the public interest did not outweigh the factors supporting a stay. "On this record, any countervailing harm to appellee and the public does not outweigh appellants' success on the two 'most critical' stay factors," the court concluded. The order does not resolve the underlying case or decide whether the rule is ultimately lawful.

Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, celebrated the ruling as a win for election integrity with implications for states that decline to hand over their voter rolls.

Nearly every voter in California casts a ballot by mail, and while state officials have repeatedly insisted the system is safe and secure, the sheer volume it processes and its repeated inability to count votes promptly have raised doubts. The Los Angeles mayoral election on June 2 took nearly a month to finish counting ballots. State law accounts for much of that lag - California counts mailed ballots postmarked by Election Day for a full week afterward, and counties have 30 days to certify - but critics argue the drawn-out timelines corrode public confidence in the results. State election officials have directly pushed back against Trump's claims of fraud, framing the volume and complexity of California's system as a feature rather than a vulnerability.