The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Postal Service rule was likely a regulation of the manner, time, place, and manner of holding elections, which is assigned to states and Congress, not an executive agency.
Posted by The Lawfare Podcast, Checked
- Sources
- 6 support1 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 90%
The Lawfare PodcastSep 14, 2026
The First Circuit's stay denial (per the court's own opinion and CBS/Volokh excerpts of it) states the district court concluded, and the panel agreed, that the USPS Final Rule is likely a regulation of the manner of holding elections for members of Congress, which the Elections Clause assigns to states and Congress, not to an executive agency like the Postal.
The guest relays this claim without endorsing it. It counts as passed on, not against the post.
What was said
… briefing is done as of either yesterday or Wednesday, and so really there could be a ruling anytime on the emergency docket, and so we'll find out what they're going to do. The First Circuit focused on the likelihood of success on the merits and said that the rule was likely a regulation of the manner, time, place, and manner of holding elections, and that's assigned to the states and Congress, not to an executive agency like the Postal Service without congressional authorization, and that Congress hadn't authorized it. And you're doing a sort of major questions doctrine analysis. They said that it was not likely that Congress would have delegated these constitutionally assigned tasks through the wafer thin read of this general grant …
The Lawfare Podcast · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. The First Circuit opinion states the Final Rule is likely a regulation of the manner of holding elections for members of Congress, assigned by the Elections Clause to the States and Congress, and not to an executive agency such as the Postal Service acting without congressional authorization.[3][5][6]
Supports. Multiple outlets (AP, Reuters, Daily Record, Volokh) report the panel upheld the injunction on the ground that the rule was likely unlawful under the Elections Clause and lacked congressional authorization.[1][2][6][7]
Context. The Supreme Court's separate interim opinion in Postal Service v. California expresses a view that the rule may fall within USPS statutory authority and that Congress may authorize such rules, but this is a dissent-style interim view and does not reverse the First Circuit's stay denial.[4]
Sources
7 sources: 2 fact-checkers, 2 primary, 2 tier 2, 1 not rated
- 1Appeals court hands Trump a loss on mail voting ...apnews.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 2Trump administration asks US appeals court to lift order blocking mail-in voting rulereuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 3United States Court of Appealsca1.uscourts.gov · primary source · cited for: supports
- 426A305 Postal Service v. California (09/14/2026)supremecourt.gov · primary source · cited for: context
- 5Appeals court rejects Trump request to lift block on Postal Service rule for mail ballotscbsnews.com · tier 2 · cited for: supports
- 6First Circuit Refuses to Stay District Court Injunction ...reason.com · tier 2 · cited for: supports
- 7Appeals court rejects Trump mail-in ballot restrictions as ...thedailyrecord.com · not rated · cited for: supports
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- The First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay the injunction against the Postal Service rule regarding mail-in ballots.True
- A postal service employee claimed in a declaration filed to the First Circuit that the Postal Service is not ready to implement the rule regarding mail voting.True
- The Postal Service issued a rule regarding mail-in ballots while subject to an injunction.True
- The Supreme Court ruled in favor of states challenging the United States Postal Service's election rulemaking process.True
- Justice Samuel Alito argued that the Postal Service has the authority to implement a regulation governing mail-in ballots.True