A federal judge has once again blocked an executive order from President Donald Trump that aimed to limit mail voting, issuing a two-week halt to the directive. The decision comes just about a week before the first mail ballots are scheduled to be sent out for the approaching midterm elections.
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani blocked the government from implementing the order. The case could be appealed to the Supreme Court, which recently issued a procedural decision allowing the administration to proceed.
The ruling followed Democrats and voting rights groups refiling their lawsuits to align with the Supreme Court's recent decision. The high court's conservative majority had not ruled on the legality of Trump's executive order itself, but rather stated that Talwani had acted prematurely.
The administration subsequently issued a formal rule governing whether the U.S. Postal Service would deliver states' mail ballots, which has restarted the legal challenge.
This legal battle has significant implications for the midterms. Nearly one-third of Americans vote by mail, and election officials have stated there is insufficient time to revise their systems to comply with the new Postal Service directives. According to the Postal Service, it will not deliver mail ballots unless states provide a list of eligible voters and format the envelopes in a specific way.
"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 in her ruling.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of two dozen Democratic attorneys general who filed suit, stated, "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."
Democrats and voting rights advocates argue that the Postal Service's demands are unconstitutional, asserting that the Constitution grants states and Congress the authority to set election rules, not the president or the Postal Service.
This argument was previously used by courts to block Trump's first executive order on election procedures, which sought measures such as requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration.
Trump has frequently criticized mail voting, falsely attributing his 2020 election loss to it, despite his own use of mail-in ballots. A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution indicated that mail voting fraud occurred in approximately four out of every 10 million mail ballots cast.
Trump issued the executive order targeting mail voting, his second election-related order since leaving office, in March. Opponents swiftly filed lawsuits, but the administration initially argued the claims were premature as no specific rules had been issued. While the administration won an initial case in Washington, D.C., on this basis, Talwani had placed injunctions against the order's implementation for the November midterms in two separate cases heard in Boston.
The Supreme Court's conservative majority struck down one of these injunctions. Talwani subsequently removed the second injunction, and the plaintiffs refiled their cases, citing the Postal Service's publication of its final rule, in pursuit of a more definitive legal victory. A hearing in the case is scheduled for September 3.