U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani temporarily halted key provisions of the Trump administration’s mail-ballot requirements for another 14 days Thursday, reopening a legal battle just days after the Supreme Court lifted one of her earlier injunctions on procedural grounds.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal judge in Boston has once again temporarily stopped the Trump administration from enforcing key mail-ballot requirements, reviving a fast-moving election dispute only days after the Supreme Court intervened in an earlier ruling from the same judge.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued a 14-day order Thursday preventing the administration from implementing portions of President Donald Trump’s election directive affecting the handling of mail ballots by the U.S. Postal Service.
The latest decision followed new lawsuits filed Wednesday after the Postal Service issued a formal rule explaining how it would carry out the administration’s requirements.
The timing places the dispute directly against the approaching midterm election calendar, with the first mail ballots expected to be sent to voters in roughly a week.
Talwani wrote that states challenging the requirements would not have enough time or money to overhaul their systems before voting begins.
“Plaintiff states have neither time nor funds to design new mail ballots, seek approval of the new designs, order production of mail ballots, update their own election management systems, train election officials to use the USPS portal and upload citizen data to the portal, all before the midterms,” Talwani wrote Thursday.
The dispute traces back to Trump’s March 2025 signing of Executive Order 14248, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”.
The order sought several changes to federal election-related procedures, including measures involving voter eligibility and mail ballots.
Talwani had previously blocked portions of the order, including an effort involving a federal voter list, and said in an earlier ruling, “The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections.”
On Aug. 11, she issued another ruling preventing the Postal Service from implementing provisions of the executive order designed to change the requirements governing mail ballots.
The Supreme Court stepped into that separate case Monday and paused Talwani’s Aug. 11 order, allowing part of Trump’s mail-voting directive to proceed.
The justices did not decide whether the underlying executive order itself is lawful.
Instead, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority concluded that Talwani had acted prematurely because the administration had not yet completed the rulemaking process specifying how the order would be implemented.
Talwani subsequently removed another injunction following the high court’s action.
That procedural landscape changed when the Postal Service issued its final rule.
Democratic-led states and voting-rights organizations then refiled their lawsuits, arguing that the existence of a completed rule eliminated the procedural problem identified by the Supreme Court and allowed courts to consider their challenges to the policy.
Talwani’s Thursday ruling came one day after those renewed cases were filed.
The Associated Press reported that the ruling could quickly send the dispute back to the Supreme Court.
“The move stalled the directive for a second time only about a week before the first mail ballots are due to be sent out for the rapidly approaching midterm elections. U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani blocked the government from implementing the order for two weeks,” the AP reported.
“The case could soon be appealed back to the Supreme Court, days after the justices handed down a procedural decision that allowed the the administration to move ahead.”
The new Postal Service policy would condition delivery of states’ mail ballots on compliance with specific federal requirements.
According to the AP, the Postal Service says it will not deliver mail ballots unless states supply a list identifying the voters who should receive them and format ballot envelopes according to prescribed requirements.
Election officials challenging the rule contend there is insufficient time to redesign ballot materials, obtain approvals, modify election-management systems and train personnel before the midterms.
Nearly one-third of Americans vote by mail, according to the report, giving the case potentially significant consequences for election administration across the country.
New York Attorney General Letitia James is among approximately two dozen Democratic attorneys general involved in one of the challenges.
“This rule is a clear attempt by the federal government to interfere in elections it has no power to control. Today, a federal court halted it before this administration could wreak havoc on our elections,” James said following Talwani’s order.
The plaintiffs argue that the federal requirements intrude on authority the Constitution assigns primarily to state legislatures, with Congress possessing certain additional powers over federal election rules.
They contend that neither the president nor the Postal Service has constitutional authority to impose the challenged requirements on state election systems.
The Trump administration has defended its election actions as measures intended to strengthen election integrity and security.
The current dispute follows an earlier legal battle over Trump’s first second-term election executive order, which included a requirement for documentary proof of citizenship in voter registration.
Courts blocked portions of that directive as litigation developed over the extent of presidential authority in administering elections.
Trump issued the mail-voting executive order in March, making it his second major election-related executive action since returning to office.
Opponents sued soon afterward.
The administration initially argued that the claims were not ready for judicial review because agencies had not yet adopted the rules necessary to implement the president’s order.
That argument succeeded in an initial case brought in Washington, D.C.
Talwani, however, issued injunctions in two separate Boston cases preventing implementation of the directive for the November midterms.
The Supreme Court on Monday lifted one of those injunctions.
After the high court acted, Talwani removed the second injunction, and the plaintiffs returned to court after publication of the Postal Service’s final rule.
Thursday’s order therefore does not simply reinstate the earlier litigation in precisely the same procedural posture. The challengers are now arguing against an implementing rule that did not exist when the Supreme Court determined that the previous lawsuit had been brought too early.
The wider dispute also reflects Trump’s longstanding criticism of widespread mail voting.
The AP characterized Trump’s claims connecting mail voting with his 2020 election defeat as false and noted that Trump himself has used mail voting to cast ballots.
A 2025 Brookings Institution report cited by the AP estimated that mail-voting fraud occurred in approximately four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast.
Supporters of Trump’s policies maintain that stronger verification and handling requirements are appropriate safeguards for election integrity, while opponents contend the federal government is attempting to exercise authority over election administration that belongs to states and Congress.
The White House did not immediately respond Thursday to a request for comment on Talwani’s latest order.
A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 3.
The case could again reach the Supreme Court as the midterm election approaches, this time with the justices potentially confronting arguments arising from the Postal Service’s completed rule rather than the procedural question that drove Monday’s decision.
For the next 14 days, however, Talwani’s latest order prevents the administration from enforcing the challenged provisions while the federal court considers the renewed lawsuits.
Original article
Comments