Texas Mail-In Voting Lawsuit, 5th Circuit Restores SB 1’s ID and Assistance Requirements

A federal appeals court has reinstated a set of Texas mail-in voting rules that had been struck down for more than a year, in the latest turn of a legal fight over the state’s 2021 election law that’s now stretched across five years and multiple courts. Here’s the full history of the case, what the new ruling actually changed, and what it means for Texans who vote by mail going forward.

Case Overview — Quick Facts

Category	Detail
Case	La Unión del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, consolidated with OCA-Greater Houston v. Esparza, Houston Justice v. Abbott, LULAC Texas v. Esparza, Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, and United States v. Texas
Originating Court	U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (San Antonio Division)
Appeals Court	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Ruling Date	August 12, 2026
Panel	Three-judge panel; opinion authored by Judge Andrew Oldham
Law at Issue	Texas Senate Bill 1 (2021)
What Changed	Reinstated mail ballot ID requirements, voter assistance oath/disclosure rules, and related provisions blocked by a lower court in March 2025
Legal Basis for Reversal	Most plaintiffs found to lack standing; one claim rejected on the merits
Status	Fifth Circuit’s ruling is in effect; further appeal (en banc rehearing or Supreme Court petition) is possible but not yet confirmed
Case Filed	September 2021, before SB 1 was signed into law

What Senate Bill 1 Actually Does

Texas passed SB 1 in 2021, a broad election law that changed how local officials run elections and how some Texans vote. Part of the law was a direct response to pandemic-era voting measures Harris County had adopted, including drive-thru and 24-hour voting, both of which SB 1 banned outright.

For mail-in voting specifically, SB 1 added several new requirements:

• Voters must provide an ID number — a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number — on both their mail ballot application and their ballot envelope, and it has to match what’s in state voter records
• Anyone assisting a voter with a mail ballot must sign an oath stating they didn’t coerce the voter, and must disclose their relationship to that voter
• The law created new criminal provisions around “vote harvesting” — paid assistance in delivering ballots — and restricted partisan poll watcher oversight rules

Texas allows people 65 and older, along with voters who have qualifying disabilities or will be out of the county during the election, to vote by mail. SB 1’s rules apply to that entire pool of mail voters.

Related article: NYC DOE District 75 Abuse Investigation Lawsuit, Were You Affected? — Z.S. v. New York City Department of Education, No. 1:26-cv-04607

How the Lawsuit Got Here

The legal challenge to SB 1 started before the law even took effect. In September 2021, the Brennan Center and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed suit in the Western District of Texas on behalf of La Unión del Pueblo Entero (LUPE) and several other civil rights and voting rights organizations. Multiple related lawsuits followed and were consolidated into one case, with the U.S. Department of Justice also joining as a plaintiff in United States v. Texas.

The plaintiffs argued that SB 1’s ID number requirements, assistance rules, and related provisions violated the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act’s materiality provision, and — specifically for voters with disabilities — the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. They argued the paperwork and disclosure requirements created real, practical barriers for voters with disabilities and limited English proficiency who rely on someone else to help them vote by mail.

A bench trial was held in the fall of 2023. In March 2025, the district court agreed with the plaintiffs on several points and struck down nine provisions of the law, including the ID number matching requirement and the voter-assistance oath and disclosure rules, ruling they violated the ADA.

Texas appealed. On August 12, 2026, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling in its entirety, finding that most of the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring their claims and that the one claim that did have standing failed on the merits.

What the Court Said

Writing for the panel, Judge Andrew Oldham was direct about where the court came down: he wrote that most of the plaintiffs’ claims fail for lack of standing, one claim fails on the merits, and that none of it justified blocking the legislature’s fraud-prevention efforts. The opinion also stated that mail-in ballots have long been considered vulnerable to fraud.

The ruling pointed to data on rejection rates as part of its reasoning: the state reported that mail ballot application and ballot rejections tied to ID number mismatches dropped from 11% to 2.7% after SB 1’s rules were implemented. Critics of the law have cited a different figure from the same period — a 2022 study found that roughly 1 in 7 voters had applications or ballots rejected in the 2022 primary, the first election held under the new rules, before those rejection rates declined in later cycles.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a defendant in the case, called the ruling a major victory for election integrity on social media following the decision.

The Two Sides of the Debate

This case sits at the center of a broader, ongoing national argument about mail-in voting, and both sides have a consistent throughline they’ve repeated across the litigation’s five years.

The state’s position: Texas and the law’s supporters argue SB 1’s ID and disclosure requirements are reasonable safeguards against fraud, that they help verify a mail voter’s identity the same way in-person ID requirements do, and that declining rejection rates over time show the system is working as election officials and voters adjust to it.

The challengers’ position: LUPE, MALDEF, the Brennan Center, and the other plaintiff organizations argue the law creates real, disproportionate burdens for voters with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and older voters who depend on someone else’s help to complete a mail ballot — and that the initial spike in rejected ballots in 2022 shows the practical harm was real, whatever the rate has done since.

Neither side disputes that mail-in voting exists in Texas for eligible voters; the disagreement is over how much friction the state can put in that process and who bears the cost of it.

What Happens Next

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling reinstates SB 1’s mail ballot ID and assistance provisions for now, meaning they’re back in effect heading into the 2026 election cycle. LUPE and its co-plaintiffs have not been shy about pursuing further appeals in this case — an earlier related petition in the same litigation went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear it in mid-2026. Whether this particular ruling gets a request for en banc rehearing at the Fifth Circuit or another petition to the Supreme Court had not been publicly confirmed as of this writing.

For Texans who vote by mail, the practical takeaway right now is straightforward: the ID number matching requirement and the assistance oath/disclosure rules are active law. Voters over 65, voters with qualifying disabilities, and anyone helping them complete a mail ballot should expect to follow SB 1’s requirements for the current election cycle unless a further court order changes that.

Sources Used in This Article

• The Texas Tribune, “Texas’ mail ballot ID requirements restored by federal appeals court,” Aug. 12, 2026: https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/12/texas-mail-ballot-voter-id-application-appeal-ruling/
• Bloomberg Law, “Texas Mail-in Voting Limits Survive Disabilities Act Challenge,” Aug. 12, 2026
• The Texan, “Federal Appeals Court Restores Texas Mail Ballot Requirements, Election Integrity Measures”
• Brennan Center for Justice, “LUPE v. State of Texas” case page: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/lupe-v-state-texas
• Democracy Docket, “La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott” case tracker: https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/texas-voter-suppression-law-lupe/
• Center for Public Representation, opposition brief filing summary, Nov. 21, 2025
• Fifth Circuit opinion (via CourtListener/RECAP): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.223830/gov.uscourts.ca5.223830.244.0.pdf

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against court filings, the Fifth Circuit’s published opinion, and reporting from the Texas Tribune, Bloomberg Law, and case-tracking organizations on August 14, 2026. Last Updated: August 14, 2026.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Election law is complex and subject to ongoing litigation; for advice about your specific voting situation, consult your county elections office or a qualified attorney.