Federal district Judge Indira Talwani has issued a new order temporarily blocking an effort by the Trump administration aimed at restricting mail-in voting for the upcoming midterm elections. The order follows Talwani's previous injunction against an executive order from March that imposed new regulations on the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) regarding mail ballots. The Supreme Court had previously reinstated that order.
Talwani's latest ruling in League of Women Voters v. Trump establishes a new legal challenge that is likely to return to the Supreme Court. The outcome hinges on whether the Court, with its 6-3 Republican majority, will permit significant changes to election procedures close to Election Day.
Talwani's order leverages the "major questions doctrine," a legal concept favored by the Court's conservative majority. This doctrine posits that the executive branch cannot enact sweeping policy changes, even if a statute appears to grant such authority, without clear congressional direction. The Supreme Court articulated this in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (2014), stating, "we expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’"
The judge argues that the Trump administration's new rules on mail-in voting impose a level of bureaucracy that could make compliance impossible for many states, effectively hindering or shutting down mail-in voting. Given that several states rely heavily on mail-in ballots, these restrictions could significantly impact the midterm elections. The administration's argument that these rules are necessary is based on two broadly worded statutes: one permitting USPS to adopt rules "as may be necessary in the execution of its functions," and another allowing it to "provide for the collection, handling, transportation, delivery, forwarding, returning, and holding of mail."
A central question is whether the Supreme Court will apply the major questions doctrine to actions by former President Trump. In a 2026 case, Learning Resources v. Trump, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett indicated the doctrine could apply to Trump's tariffs, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented on its applicability in foreign affairs.
If Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett maintain their previous stance, they could form a majority with the Court's three Democratic justices to strike down the voting restrictions. Legal scholars and the Court's Democratic justices have questioned the legitimacy of the major questions doctrine, as it lacks clear constitutional or statutory grounding and has primarily been applied against the Biden administration.
The Trump administration has expressed concerns about the security and efficiency of mail-in voting, introducing new requirements for ballot envelopes and scanning processes. Critics, however, argue these measures are politically motivated, designed to suppress votes from Democrats who disproportionately use mail-in voting. For instance, challenges filed by states note that California alone would need to process 23 million ballots, potentially requiring millions of minutes of additional state labor to comply with one aspect of the new regulations.
The League of Women Voters case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to either solidify the major questions doctrine by applying it in a bipartisan manner or to acknowledge its controversial nature. The outcome could have significant implications for election administration and the Court's own jurisprudence.