Read the 37-State First Circuit Opposition to Staying the TRO in the USPS Mail Ballot Case

Introduction

What Happened

In early September, a federal district court issued a TRO after voting‑rights groups sued the USPS, alleging that a new “hands‑sorting” plan and a downgrade of service standards would jeopardize the timely delivery of millions of mail‑in ballots. The TRO halted the USPS from rolling out those changes until the court could fully consider the plaintiffs’ claims. Shortly thereafter, the Postal Service, backed by the Trump‑appointed Postmaster General, moved to stay the TRO, arguing that the order was “overbroad” and would cripple essential postal operations.

The 37‑state coalition responded with a comprehensive opposition brief. The states contend that the USPS’s proposed policies—particularly the nationwide hands‑sorting of mail and the reduction of overtime for postal workers—pose a clear and present danger to the constitutional right to vote. They argue that the TRO is narrowly tailored, grounded in solid statutory authority, and essential to prevent a repeat of the 2020 election’s delivery delays. By filing the opposition, the states seek to keep the protective order in place and preserve the status quo for the remaining weeks before Election Day.

Key Details

The opposition brief zeroes in on three specific USPS actions. First, the “hands‑sorting” plan would replace automated sorting equipment with manual processing, a move that the brief says would dramatically slow the flow of mail‑in ballots, especially in high‑volume jurisdictions. Second, the USPS’s decision to downgrade First‑Class Mail service standards from “overnight” to “2‑day” delivery for certain regions directly threatens the ability of ballots to arrive before state deadlines. Third, the reduction of overtime and the reassignment of workers away from election‑critical routes would leave the system understaffed at a time when the volume of mail is expected to surge.

To bolster its argument, the brief cites internal USPS memoranda, testimony from former postal officials, and statistical analyses showing that the proposed changes would increase average delivery times by 12‑18 percent. It also references the Postal Service’s own performance metrics, which indicate that even modest delays can translate into thousands of ballots arriving late. The states further argue that the TRO is consistent with the Postal Reorganization Act and the Voting Rights Act, both of which empower courts to intervene when a federal agency’s actions threaten fundamental voting rights.

Background

The controversy stems from a series of cost‑cutting measures announced by the USPS in 2022, including the removal of high‑speed sorting machines and the consolidation of delivery routes. While the Postal Service frames these moves as necessary for fiscal sustainability, election‑law scholars warn that the timing—coinciding with a presidential election year—creates a perfect storm for voter disenfranchisement. The 2020 election already exposed vulnerabilities, as thousands of ballots were delayed, prompting lawsuits and public outcry.

Legal challenges to the USPS’s policies have been mounting. In addition to the current TRO, several states have filed separate suits alleging violations of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause and the statutory duty of the USPS to provide “prompt, reliable, and efficient” service. The 37‑state opposition represents the most coordinated effort to date, uniting states with diverse political leanings around a common concern: that any relaxation of mail‑ballot delivery standards could undermine the legitimacy of the upcoming election.

Why It Matters

At its core, the case is about the balance between governmental efficiency and the fundamental right to vote. If the court lifts the TRO, the USPS could proceed with its hands‑sorting plan and reduced service standards, potentially causing widespread delays that would disproportionately affect rural voters, seniors, and communities of color—groups that rely heavily on mail‑in voting. The states argue that the TRO is a necessary safeguard to ensure that every eligible voter has a fair chance to have their ballot counted.

Beyond the immediate election, the outcome will set a precedent for how courts evaluate agency actions that intersect with voting rights. A decision to uphold the TRO would reinforce judicial oversight of federal agencies when their policies threaten constitutional guarantees. Conversely, a stay could embolden the USPS and other agencies to implement cost‑saving measures without robust scrutiny, raising long‑term concerns about the resilience of the nation’s voting infrastructure.

What Happens Next

The First Circuit will now review the 37‑state opposition alongside the USPS’s request for a stay. Oral arguments are scheduled for later this month, during which the judges are expected to probe the factual basis of the USPS’s operational changes, the adequacy of the TRO’s scope, and the legal standards governing injunctive relief in voting‑rights cases. Both sides will likely present expert testimony on mail‑delivery timelines and the statistical likelihood of ballot delays.

Regardless of the court’s ruling, the states have signaled that they will continue to monitor the USPS’s actions and may pursue additional litigation if the agency proceeds with the contested policies. Election officials across the country are also preparing contingency plans—such as extending ballot‑drop deadlines and increasing in‑person voting options—to mitigate any adverse effects should the TRO be lifted. Voters, advocacy groups, and the media will be watching closely, as the decision will shape the logistical landscape of the 2024 election.

Conclusion