August 25, 2026 ” Proposed Order [Doc. No.

189-1]. 4 excerpt 

Defendants argue that these requests “would essentially confirm the current status quo—which all parties already agree upon, and which the Final Rule already provides.” Defs.’ Opp’n.

10 [Doc. No. 197]. Defendants continue that “[b]ecause the Court’s order in this case formally remains in effect (at least, as of this filing), it is already the case that ‘the Final Rule issued by the United States Postal Service (USPS), titled “Ballot Mail For Federal Elections,” has no force or effect with respect to any federal election on or before November 3, 2026.’” Id. The court finds that the relief requested by the Plaintiffs will not remedy the past violation and agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs’ proposed further order does not change the current landscape. Defendants also assert that Plaintiffs are not without remedy because “they can simply amend their complaint,” and that Defendants “would consent to the filing of an amended complaint, to allow Plaintiffs to challenge the Final Rule directly.” Id. at 15–16.

The court understands from prior filings that Plaintiffs are not challenging the Final Rule, but the EO itself.

Specifically, Plaintiffs claim the executive branch lacks authority to regulate elections, and thus may not direct USPS to promulgate a rule concerning mail-in ballots, where authority over elections rests with Congress and the States, and not the President. Pls.’ Mem. ISO Prelim. Inj.9–13 [Doc. No. 171]. But Defendants’ violation of the court’s order may ultimately inure to Plaintiffs’ benefit, where, now that a Final Rule has issued despite the pendency of the injunction, Plaintiffs could choose to file an amended complaint reasserting their current, non-APA claims, but noting that the issuance of a Final Rule is no longer hypothetical.