The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the U.S. Postal Service to enforce new rules about how mail ballots are handled, just weeks before the November midterm elections. The Justice Department filed an emergency appeal, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer asking the Supreme Court to pause a temporary order that currently stops the Postal Service from enforcing its new requirements. This order was issued by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani last week and is set to remain in effect for several more days. The Justice Department has appealed this decision, but the appeals court has not yet ruled. Talwani is also considering a request from 24 Democratic-led states and voting rights groups, who argue the mail-voting rules are illegal. She held a hearing earlier this week to consider their request for a preliminary injunction. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who handles emergency appeals from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, has asked the states to respond to the Trump administration’s request by Tuesday morning. Sauer, in his request to the Supreme Court, argued that the Postal Service's rule only requires "modest" envelope design and address information for federal election ballots sent by mail. He emphasized that the rule is about regulating the U.S. mail, not federal elections, and is therefore constitutional. He also pointed out that while states have the primary authority to regulate elections, they cannot use the federal mail system to conduct elections and then expect their mail to be exempt from federal postal regulations. This appeal follows a temporary restraining order from Talwani that blocked parts of the rule from being implemented. Sauer wrote that the order risks causing confusion and chaos by making steps to comply with the rule voluntary rather than mandatory, which could prevent states from properly preparing for mail voting. The timing of the request surprised many, as the administration already had an ongoing appeal of the order in the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Talwani was also expected to rule on whether to issue a preliminary injunction in the case. In her earlier ruling, Talwani sided with the states and voting rights groups, who argued the rule unlawfully took away states' authority to regulate their own elections. She noted that the rule would require states to seek advance approval from the Postal Service for mail ballot designs and to use a new electronic portal to submit voter information, all within a very short timeframe before the November elections. Talwani wrote that most states have already begun sending out mail ballots and lack the time and resources to comply with the new requirements. The rule was established through an executive order issued by President Donald Trump in March titled "Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections." Talwani had previously blocked the rule in a related case, but the Supreme Court overturned her decision in June, saying it was premature because the rule had not yet been finalized. The rule was finalized late last month. In court filings, the government argued that the changes are "modest," simply turning longstanding postal recommendations into requirements. They emphasized that the rule is about regulating the U.S. mail, not a federal takeover of election administration. The government said this distinction undermines the states' claims and suggests they are likely to succeed in their appeal.