NRLCA opposed the Administration’s Executive Order targeting vote by mail when it was issued
earlier this year, and in July we submitted formal comments urging the Postal Service to
withdraw its proposed rule. Our position remains unchanged—the Postal Service should deliver
election mail securely, promptly, and neutrally. It should not assume responsibilities that
properly belong to state and local election officials.

The Postal Service remains one of America’s most trusted public institutions because its
employees serve every community without regard to politics. By issuing these rules, Postal
Service management and Postmaster General David Steiner are undermining that trust and
threatening its reputation with the American public.

The Postal Service has always had a simple role in our elections: deliver the mail, including
ballots, without political interference. These new rules would change that. They would give
Postal Service management a role in determining whether states have met new federal
requirements before their ballots are transmitted through the mail. That threatens the Postal
Service’s independence and the public trust that postal workers have earned by serving every
community without regard to politics.

That represents a significant departure from the Postal Service’s traditional role. State and local
election officials should determine how elections are administered, while USPS performs the
essential and neutral function of transporting ballots between election officials and voters.

Rural Americans have an especially large stake in preserving that system. In communities
where voters may live many miles from a polling place, reliable mail service can be an essential
connection to the ballot box. New administrative requirements that create the possibility of
rejected or delayed ballot mail risk placing additional barriers between rural voters and their
ability to participate in elections.

The timing of this rule is also troubling. Federal courts have already issued injunctions
preventing implementation of these requirements for the 2026 election, and USPS
acknowledges that it cannot implement the rule for this year’s election unless those injunctions
are lifted.

NRLCA will continue to defend the independence and neutrality of the Postal Service and
oppose efforts to turn it into an election enforcement agency.
—
Established in 1903, the NRLCA represents approximately 130,000 career and noncareer rural letter carriers that operate out of more than 10,500 rural and suburban
postal delivery units, serving over 85,000 rural routes.

Ryan Sherman, 36, has been charged by criminal complaint and made his initial appearance in federal court today.

According to court documents, Sherman was in possession of dozens of images and videos of child sexual abuse material. In addition to possessing images and videos Sheman produced obscene child sexual abuse images for people he talked to on the internet, taking innocuous photographs of children and using artificial intelligence (AI) to turn them into obscene images. Sherman exchanged child abuse material on SimpleX with other members of a chat group. When asked by an individual seeking obscene images whether he had any limit to the images he would or could create, defendant bragged that he had “none.” Sherman occupies a position of trust as the Postmaster for Seaside, Oregon.

On August 25, 2026, Sherman was arrested in Seaside, Oregon.

Sherman made his first appearance in federal court today before a U.S. magistrate judge. He was ordered detained pending further court proceedings.

The FBI and Clatsop County Sheriff’s Office are investigating the case, with assistance from the Seaside Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney Natasha Geiling is prosecuting the case.

This case was brought in collaboration with Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse, launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the DOJ’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children, as well as identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.

A criminal complaint is only an accusation of a crime, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

• A federal judge lifted the final injunction blocking President Donald Trump’s mail-voting order, allowing the administration to impose new requirements ahead of the November midterm election.
• The Postal Service rule requires states to provide mail-voter lists and use reviewed, uniquely barcoded ballot envelopes. About 30% of voters cast ballots by mail in 2024.
• Voting-rights groups amended their complaint to challenge the finalized rule directly, marking the third legal challenge targeting it.
• Neither Wednesday’s ruling nor the Supreme Court’s decision upheld the policy’s legality, and the challengers can seek new injunctions blocking the finalized rule.

A federal judge on Wednesday lifted the final injunction blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting, clearing his administration to impose new ballot requirements weeks before the November midterm election.

The decision came as the policy faced a fresh wave of litigation. Democratic-led states filed a new lawsuit earlier Wednesday, while voting-rights groups amended their existing complaint to challenge the finalized U.S. Postal Service rule — the third legal challenge targeting it.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston vacated the nationwide preliminary injunction she issued earlier this month, concluding that Monday’s Supreme Court ruling in a related case required her to reconsider it.

The Postal Service had said it would not apply the rule to the 2026 elections unless both injunctions against it were lifted. That condition has now been met, and the new lawsuits do not themselves prevent USPS from moving forward. Read more

On September 11, 2024, a federal grand jury indicted Gibson, 28, of Bartlett, Tennessee, in a seven-count Indictment with two counts of assault of a United States Postal employee, one count of attempted robbery of United States property, one count of assaulting and impeding a United States Postal employee, and one count of unlawful possession of a postal key. On March 10, 2026, Gibson pleaded guilty to two counts of assault with the intent to rob a United States Postal employee. In addition to the 48-month sentence, Judge Marshall also sentenced Gibson to serve two years’ supervised release. There is no parole in the federal system.

An investigation revealed that on June 11, 2022, Gibson pulled alongside a United States Postal mail carrier that sitting in the Postal vehicle while delivering mail in North Little Rock. Gibson demanded the mail carrier give him the drop box key, but the mail carrier refused and drove off. Gibson encountered the mail carrier on a different route later that day and demanded the key once again, and this time Gibson brandished a firearm at the mail carrier.

Later that same day, Gibson approached a different mail carrier who was delivering mail to an apartment complex in North Little Rock. When Gibson approached the mail carrier, he was holding a black rifle in his right hand and demanded the mail carrier immediately give him the postal key. After initially refusing, the mail carrier eventually gave the postal key to Gibson. Following the robbery, law enforcement officers from the North Little Rock Police Department conducted a traffic stop and arrested Gibson. At the time of his arrest, officers located on the floorboard of the vehicle the air rifle that resembled an AR-15 rifle that was used in the robbery. Gibson later admitted to having what appeared to be a firearm during the first attempted robbery and during the robbery of the postal key.

This case was investigated by the United States Postal Inspection Service with assistance from the North Little Rock Police Department. This case was prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Arkansas.

“Mail carriers are entrusted with the responsibility of handling citizens’ valuable and personal communications, but McAfee abused that trust by stealing more than 200 checks and gift cards,” said U.S. Attorney Theodore S. Hertzberg. “My office works closely with our federal partners to aggressively prosecute any federal employee who misuses public office for private gain.”

“Today’s sentencing sends a strong message to anyone who thinks mail theft and check fraud will go unpunished,” said Special Agent in Charge Jonathan Ulrich of the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General. “Our special agents, along with our federal and local law enforcement partners, will aggressively investigate these federal crimes to protect the sanctity of the U.S. Mail and maintain the public’s trust.”

According to U.S. Attorney Hertzberg, the charges, and other information presented in court: From August 2022 to September 2024, McAfee worked as a U.S. Postal Service mail carrier in the Smyrna, Georgia area. The U.S. Postal Service – Office of Inspector General (USPS-OIG) launched an investigation after receiving customer complaints about mail stolen along McAfee’s postal route. During the investigation, USPS-OIG obtained surveillance footage of McAfee stealing mail on her route. Additional investigation determined that she stole mail containing 171 checks, with a total value exceeding $1,035,000. USPS-OIG agents executed a search warrant at McAfee’s home, where they discovered envelopes for stolen mail, 145 stolen checks, and 37 stolen gift cards. When confronted by USPS-OIG agents in September 2024, McAfee resigned from the Postal Service.

Melissa McAfee, 44, of Jonesboro, Ga., has been sentenced to two years in prison to be followed by two years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay restitution. McAfee pleaded guilty to possession of stolen mail on May 14, 2026.

This case was investigated by the United States Postal Service – Office of Inspector General.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Samir Kaushal prosecuted the case.

The planned change for peak season, which was approved by the governors of the Postal Service, would affect prices on the following retail and commercial domestic competitive parcels: Priority Mail Express (PME), Priority Mail (PM), USPS Ground Advantage, and Parcel Select. No other products or services would be affected. Pending favorable review by the PRC, the temporary rates would go into effect at 12 a.m. CT on Oct. 4 and remain in place until 12 a.m. CT on Jan. 17, 2027.

This seasonal adjustment will bring prices for the Postal Service’s retail and commercial customers in line with competitive practices.

As a part of the Postal Service’s transformation plan, these temporary changes will support the organization in achieving our public service mission — providing a nationwide, integrated network for the delivery of mail and packages at least six days a week — in a cost-effective and financially sustainable manner over the long term, just as the U.S. Congress has intended.

The planned price changes include:

Retail:

Commercial:

The complete Postal Service price filings with prices for all products can be found on the PRC website under the Daily Listings section at prc.gov/dockets/daily. For the Shipping Services filing, see Docket No. CP2026-10. The Postal Service provides additional resources to assist customers regarding the price changes. These tools include price lists, downloadable price files and Federal Register Notices. This information will be available on the Postal Service’s Postal Explorer website at pe.usps.com/PriceChange/Index.

# # #

SCOTUS BLOG – 8/24/26

Supreme Court allows Trump administration to move forward with order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting – By Amy Howe

The Supreme Court on Monday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, that imposes restrictions on mail-in voting. The court paused an injunction by a federal judge in Boston that had barred the federal government from applying provisions of that executive order in the November elections to 23 states (along with the District of Columbia) challenging their legality.

A separate ruling by the same judge, in a case filed by a different set of plaintiffs, temporarily prohibits the U.S. Postal Service from implementing one provision of the executive order anywhere in the United States. That ruling remains in effect, at least for now.

In its 10-page, unsigned opinion, the majority said that it was too soon for courts to consider the states’ challenge because the order has not yet been carried out – which means that the states have not suffered the kind of injury that allows their lawsuit to move forward.

The court’s three Democratic appointees dissented. In a 23-page opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the majority of “[t]aking its eye off the ball” and thus “miss[ing] the Government’s actual objective: to secure our imprimatur for its effort to foment chaos ahead of the November elections.”

President Donald Trump signed the executive order at the center of the dispute in March. As it came to the court in late July, the focus of the case was on three different provisions of the order. The first instructs the Department of Homeland Security to create lists of the adult U.S. citizens in each state and to send those lists to states at least 60 days before a federal election. The second provision commands the U.S. attorney general to “prioritize the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of State and local officials … who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal election.” And the third provision requires states to give the U.S. Postal Service a list of voters to whom the states intend to send mail ballots, and it prohibits the USPS from mailing ballots to voters who are not on the lists of “enrolled” voters that the USPS will create.

A group of 23 states, led by California, and the District of Columbia challenged the government’s implementation of the order in a federal court in Massachusetts. They argued that the executive order conflicts with provisions in the Constitution that give states the power to determine voter eligibility and to set the “Times, Places, and Manner” of holding congressional elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that she could not review the challengers’ claims as they applied to federal elections scheduled after Nov. 3, 2026, because those claims were not yet “ripe” – that is, ready for review. However, she said, she could review the challengers’ claims with regard to the upcoming midterm elections because the order “created a ‘direct and immediate dilemma’” for them, and she prohibited the federal government from implementing the challenged restrictions on or before Nov. 3, 2026, in the District of Columbia and the 23 states.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to pause Talwani’s order while the litigation continued. It stressed that neither the federal government nor 12 states, led by Alabama, that had joined the case on the Trump administration’s side had argued that the executive order was legal. That court also rejected the contention that the challengers did not have a right to sue or that the case was not yet ripe. The consequences of the executive order, the court of appeals countered, give states “no practical choice but to respond to the EO now.”

The Trump administration came to the Supreme Court seeking relief on July 27. Calling Talwani’s order “extraordinary,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer renewed his argument that the challengers’ claims are not yet ripe for review because the agencies haven’t yet decided how they will implement the order. He also contended that unless Talwani’s order is paused, the government will be permanently harmed – one factor that courts consider in deciding whether to grant temporary relief – because it “blocks the government’s ability to finalize and implement the President’s proposed policies to promote election integrity for the upcoming federal elections in November.” Moreover, he added, “every day that it remains in place irreparably harms the government, as the start of mail-in and absentee voting in some States is now just one month away.”

Alabama and the other 11 states supporting the Trump administration pointed to two recent rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit involving the same executive order – one of which, they said, “held that it is too early to challenge the EO,” and the other of which allowed the executive order to be reinstated “on th[at] same basis.”

The challengers countered on Aug. 3 that putting Talwani’s injunction on hold “would allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program that would, among other things, give the U.S. Postal Service far-reaching new powers and responsibilities.” They also emphasized that the 1st Circuit had agreed with them that “‘the specificity of the EO’s stated timelines and the inescapable legal requirements and impending deadlines that States currently face in facilitating mail-in and absentee balloting for immediately upcoming elections together establish’” the kind of “‘concrete injury’” that allows them to sue.

Three weeks later, the Trump administration once again urged the justices to step in, this time citing the imminent publication of a new U.S. Postal Service rule that, Sauer said, “imposes only modest requirements for preparation and envelope design for federal ballot mail” – such as requiring mail-in ballots “to be mailed in envelopes that include the official Election Mail logo, are automation compatible, and use unique barcodes that denote the item’s status as federal ballot mail and its delivery point ZIP code.” If the justices do not pause Talwani’s order, Sauer told them, the Postal Service “cannot implement the rule” for the upcoming November elections.

On Monday afternoon the court granted the government’s request. In its unsigned opinion, the majority wrote that the first provision of the order, instructing the DHS secretary to create state citizenship lists, is simply “an internal directive from the President to a subordinate.” Because it doesn’t require states to do anything, the majority reasoned, they are not injured by the provision – and therefore cannot challenge it. The possibility that the DHS secretary could implement the provision before November, and that the states could be harmed by that implementation, the majority stressed, is not enough to give the states a right to sue.

The second provision of the order does not harm the states, the majority continued, because it merely “directs the Attorney General to ‘prioritize’ the investigation and prosecution of those who violate existing federal laws by issuing ballots to ineligible voters.” Such an instruction, the court said, lies squarely within the powers that the Constitution gives the president.

And the third and final provision, the majority said, “orders the Postal Service to initiate the process of proposing a rule that might bind the States in the future.” When the states filed their lawsuit – which, the majority wrote, is the relevant time for determining whether the states had a right to sue – the order was “not a proposed rule, let alone a final rule.” Here too, the majority indicated, Talwani’s “conclusion that this internal directive inflicts” the kind of injury that would allow the states to sue “necessarily rests on an ‘attenuated chain of inferences.’” “If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the States,” the majority noted, “they may challenge that rule.”

The majority also found that the government would suffer irreparable harm if Talwani’s order is not paused now. Even if that ruling were eventually reversed, the majority emphasized, it “would come too late for the 2026 midterms.” By contrast, the majority said, the states would not be harmed from putting Talwani’s order on hold, because the executive order doesn’t require them to do anything.

In a four-page opinion joined by Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that she would have left Talwani’s order in place. She also stressed that the majority’s ruling “does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful. Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives. Instead,” she concluded, “today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.”

Sotomayor also suggested that the government was trying to “have it both ways”: On one hand, she observed, the majority “says it was speculative to think there would be a final rule at all when this suit was filed, seemingly accepting the Government’s representation that it may not actually implement the Executive Order.” But on the other hand, she wrote, the government “insists that it seeks to implement the Executive Order immediately for purposes of establishing irreparable harm.”

Jackson acknowledged that the majority had “not foreclosed States from challenging this blatantly unconstitutional Order.” But she characterized the majority’s order as another chapter “in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges.” Although the court has for two decades made clear “that even valid election-related legal claims can come too late,” she argued, the majority now indicates “that such claims can also come too early.” This is particularly problematic, she suggested, when “the Government (which controls the timing of proposed and final rules) can easily game the system.”

TRUMP GETS HUGE WIN AT SUPREME COURT FOR 2026 MAIL IN BALLOTS

NBC NEWS -WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court handed an initial win to the Trump administration Monday in its effort to implement an executive order aimed at limiting who can receive mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

At issue are provisions that seek to create a federal list of eligible voters and order the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to those people.

The justices, divided 6-3 along ideological lines with conservatives in the majority, lifted an injunction a Massachusetts-based judge imposed in June that prevented key aspects of the executive order from going into effect this year in California and 22 other states that had challenged it.

The court also granted a similar application filed by Alabama and 11 other states.

The White House praised the court’s ruling, calling the executive order’s provisions “commonsense measures.”

“This Administration will continue to lawfully enact the agenda President Trump was elected on — which includes the safety and security of our elections,” White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement. Read more

ABC 7/NY: 8/25/26 

Democrats in 23 states and the District of Columbia sued to block the order.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to move ahead with his executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much his administration can implement before the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision appears to leave room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump’s order. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes with some states beginning to send mail ballots to voters in just a few weeks.

Mail balloting has long been a favorite target for Trump, who has claimed that it breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and his own use of the voting method.

The case could be one of multiple voting-related challenges before the justices. The Justice Department had filed an emergency appeal asking the high court to allow work on implementing the changes before the midterms.

Trump’s executive order, signed in March, calls on his administration to create lists of eligible voters and orders the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. Read more

Justice Department urges judge to allow USPS to track mail ballots

USA Today 8/25/26 – The Justice Department urged a judge to allow the U.S. Postal Service to impose new restrictions on mail-in voting, after the Supreme Court lifted one of her two blocks against the policy.

But even if the blocks in both cases are lifted, opponents of the policy are expected to continue fighting in court, to prevent the restrictions from being placed on the Nov. 3 election.

The court battle came after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March directing agencies to compile a list of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state and to use federal data to help state election officials verify which voters are eligible.

The Postal Service proposed that states provide the individual barcodes associated with every mail-in ballot, to check them as they are districted to help prevent fraud. A group of 23 states challenged the policy in one lawsuit and the League of Women Voters filed a similar lawsuit that argued the Postal Service has no role in the administration of elections. Read more

Of course, the NALC does not agree with this decision – what do you expect from the NALC:

This case began as a workers’ compensation investigation. A letter carrier who injured her knee while running from a dog on her route was receiving workers’ compensation payments, but she failed to notify the Postal Service when her knee healed.

She also didn’t report the income she was receiving from her side business of selling meals and clothing out of her home.

Special agents with the Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General, or OIG, discovered that the carrier applied for and received a $20,000 Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, loan from the Small Business Administration. Such loans were intended to cover payroll expenses when business owners weren’t making sufficient money during the pandemic.

The letter carrier told agents that a co-worker had helped her fill out the loan application. This triggered a joint investigation with the Labor Department and Small Business Administration OIGs.

Postal Service OIG special agents learned that this same co-worker helped a second employee get a $43,000 PPP loan; a third employee get a $28,000 PPP loan and cheat on her income tax returns; and a fourth employee get $1.3 million in PPP loans.

She charged each co-worker substantial fees for her services and helped another four people outside the Postal Service receive a combined $165,000 in fraudulent PPP loans.

Special agents said this employee knew exactly what to write on the loan applications and tax forms to make everything look legitimate. She created fake businesses and email accounts for her co-workers so they could apply for the loans, and she prepared all the necessary paperwork — including tax declarations. Banks then processed the loan applications and the Small Business Administration disbursed the funds directly to the alleged business owners.

The Postal Service fired all of the employees who were involved. Four of them were charged, tried and sentenced — along with four non-USPS co-conspirators — to a combined 15 years in federal prison. The employee who masterminded the scam received the longest sentence — five years.

They were also ordered to pay $2 million in restitution.

“When Postal Service employees conspire to defraud federal programs, they’re stealing from the American public,” said USPS Inspector General Tammy Hull. “Our special agents will always hold those who betray that trust accountable.”

The OIG recently highlighted the case on its website.

If you know of a USPS employee committing workers’ compensation fraud, report it to the OIG. Report suspected pandemic relief fraud to the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee’s Hotline.