Federal judge blocks Trump's mail voting order nationwide, expanding injunction to all 50 states
A federal judge in Boston blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing President Trump's executive order tightening mail-in voting rules, expanding an earlier injunction from 23 states to all 50 states less than 90 days before the November 3 midterms.
Nationwide injunction
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani in Boston issued a preliminary injunction on August 11 barring the U.S. Postal Service from implementing President Donald Trump's executive order on mail-in voting anywhere in the country. The ruling expands on a June 25 summary judgment Talwani issued siding with Democratic state attorneys general, which had blocked the order in 23 mostly Democratic-led states. The new injunction, prompted by lawsuits from the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups, extends the prohibition to all 50 states for the November 3, 2026 midterm elections.
Trump signed the executive order in late March. It would require states to create voter lists and adopt new balloting procedures before USPS would deliver mail ballots. If states did not comply, USPS would have refused to deliver the ballots. Plaintiffs contended the postal service had no legal basis for such a refusal. The order would have transformed USPS from a delivery service into a gatekeeper in the election process.
- Trump signs executive order requiring states to create voter lists for USPS mail ballot delivery
- Judge Talwani grants summary judgment blocking the order in 23 mostly Democratic-led states
- Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to halt the lower court rulings
- Talwani issues nationwide preliminary injunction covering all 50 states
Court's reasoning
Talwani, nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, wrote that the executive branch lacks authority to regulate elections, a power she said belongs to states and Congress. She noted that the administration had so far declined to defend the constitutionality of the executive order. With less than 90 days before the midterms, she said changing election rules on the eve of the vote risked confusion and chaos, and that the status quo must be maintained.
The executive branch has no authority to regulate elections.
Talwani also wrote that it was critical to prevent the administration from changing election rules on the eve of the election, given how little time remained to educate voters about any new requirements.
Administration's defense
The Trump administration argued in motions to dismiss that the plaintiffs lacked standing, that the claims were premature because agencies had not finalized implementation plans, and that plaintiffs had no legal basis under the Administrative Procedure Act. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the administration, said the harms plaintiffs referenced were subjective because much could still change.
Trump has argued the voter list requirement would prevent non-citizens from voting. According to AP, states already maintain detailed voter registration procedures, and instances of non-citizen voting are rare and constitute a crime punishable by deportation.
Supreme Court next step
In late July, the Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to halt the lower court decisions blocking the order in nearly half the country. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has not yet ruled on that request. Tuesday's nationwide injunction creates an additional legal hurdle for the administration should the Supreme Court lift the earlier injunction covering the 23 states.
The November 3 midterms will decide control of Congress, with the entire House of Representatives and roughly one-third of the Senate up for election. Republicans hold narrow majorities in both chambers.
