Judge blocks Trump's Postal Service regulation on mail-in ballots
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Aug. 27, 2026, 9:56 PM EDTBy Lawrence Hurley and Gary Grumbach
A federal judge Thursday blocked a Postal Service regulation that would exert control over mail-in ballots ahead of the midterm elections in the latest setback on the issue for President Donald Trump.
The recently finalized measure would implement a key provision of Trump's executive order on mail-in ballots that would add a new level of bureaucracy to the elections process, which is typically administered by states.
The executive order directed the U.S. Postal Service to, among other things, track mail-in ballots and potentially reject those submitted by people not on a federal list of eligible voters.
The decision by Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in one case brought by the League of Women Voters and other groups and another brought by a coalition of states means part of the executive order remains blocked for at least 14 days, with time running out to implement it ahead of the November election.
"This rule is a clear attempt by the federal government to interfere in elections it has no power to control," New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. "Today, a federal court halted it before this administration could wreak havoc on our elections."
Talwani wrote that the regulation is most likely unlawful because the president cannot insert the federal government into elections without the express authorization of Congress.
"The court finds plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits of their claims," she said.
The Trump administration could seek to quickly overturn her decision by rushing to the Supreme Court.
Trump often criticizes mail-in ballots, claiming without evidence that there is rampant fraud even though they are widely used by Republicans and Democrats all across the country.
Talwani noted in her ruling that the administration had not offered "any evidence regarding fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting."
The government's interest in "correcting an unsubstantiated problem through likely unconstitutional means is dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement," she added.
Directly addressing the short time frame ahead of the election, Talwani said states "have neither time nor funds" to meet the necessary requirements, including updating election management systems and training staff members.
Based on the evidence before her, states' compliance with what the Trump administration is asking of them before the 2026 midterms would be "practically impossible," Talwani wrote.
In a separate decision Wednesday, Talwani lifted an earlier injunction she had imposed that blocked vital elements of Trump's executive order in the case.
It is a different injunction from the one the Supreme Court lifted Monday in a similar case brought by California and 22 other states. Talwani is overseeing both cases.
The Supreme Court found that Talwani had acted too hastily in ruling on the executive order but did not weigh in on whether the underlying proposal or the Postal Service regulation is lawful.
While the Postal Service regulation is now blocked, a provision of the executive order requiring the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of eligible voters and send them to states remains in effect.
Tags
Who is online
69 visitors
I plan to put my mail in ballot into the drop box at my county elections office. Everybody should.
But we shouldn't have to.
No, we shouldn't have to but Trump has been corrupting the post office for years so I don't trust it right now.
Maybe you can explain just how Trump has been corrupting the post office for years - could ya?
I find it difficult to trust any federal agency controlled by Trump these days.
Most were paying attention but in case you missed it:
That was from 2020 before the election, so for at least six years Trump has been pushing bullshit conspiracy theories about mail in ballots and now that he's back in office he believes he can corrupt the Post Office and use it to fix the "problem" of too many Americans voting for Democrats and not voting for Trump or his backed candidates. That's the plan for this upcoming election and we will see Trump and Republicans scream fowl and they may very well try and block mail in ballots and it's likely to go to the SCOTUS eventually but how much damage will have been done before then? How much damage are Republicans willing to allow before they stand up for the constitution instead of groveling for dirty Donald?
Won't matter to me since I vote in person. My polling station is a mile from where I live so in-person voting is much more convenient that voting by mail.
That's great for you. Sadly, not all Americans are in that position. Some work 7 days a week and will have to try and find the time to wait in line at the single voting location within a 10 mile radius, possibly for hours, with fewer allowed days after Republicans passed laws restricting early voting and voting on Sundays or on campuses in some States.
North Carolina increases sites but cuts Sunday voting | Raleigh News & Observer
Republicans in North Carolina Try to Reduce Early Voting on Sundays and on Campuses - The New York Times
Why is it that Republicans are SO desperate to stop AMERICANS from voting? WHY? I mean, I know the answer, but I'd just love to hear them admit it even once. They know it's not about illegal immigrants voting, they just hate their fellow Americans decisions, lifestyles, faiths, morality, just about everything about progressives is despised by conservatives so they work fervently to stop their fellow Americans from voting because they can't let them win, they can't let them 'change America' to be inclusive and different and kind.
State and local governments determine the number and location of polling stations. Perhaps there's more need to be involved in local politics rather than national politics.
I'm from Colorado, we all get mail in ballots.
colorado has been in the top 10 states for secure elections since before vote by mail started and top 5 ever since. my local ballot drop box is a 15 minute walk away, there and back. I read that colorado election officials have contingency plans if/when trump interferes in the midterms.
Washington is the same way.
it's just more of the "fuck with the blue states" bullshit from trump that his sycophants in congress will remain silent about ...
I'm sure Trumpythinskin is already posting on Truth Social about the judge and judgment.
So does this judge think they are higher than the SCOTUS?
Many people have not understood the ruling, which is largely because of how it was reported. The Court basically found - correctly - that the controversy alleged was not ripe. Nothing had actually happened yet to the states, so they lacked standing to sue. That will obviously change as executive branch agencies set out to make new (and unconstitutional) rules and regulations.
No
You just need to understand the rulings....
yeah ...
So this judge doesn't know their position in the hierarchy. In other words, an idiot. Gotcha.
I would not call you that publicly but SCOTUS made a ruling pertinent to the case but it does not keep other judges from ruling on different aspects of the case.
from the article...
soliciting volunteers could be considered entrapment ...
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
By its terms, Art. I, § 4, Cl. 1 , referred to as the Elections Clause, contemplates that state legislatures will establish the times, places, and manner of holding elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate, subject to Congress making or altering such state regulations (except as to the place of choosing Senators). 1 The Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to provide a complete code for congressional elections, not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns. 2 The Court has further recognized the states’ ability to establish sanctions for violating election laws 3 as well as authority over recounts 4 and primaries. 5 The Elections Clause, however, does not govern voter qualifications, which under Art. I, § 4, Cl. 1 , and Amdt. XVII must be the same as the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislatures. 6 Similarly, the authority of states to establish the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives does not include authority to impose additional qualification requirements to be a Member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, which are governed by the Constitution’s Qualification Clauses at Art. I, § 2, Cl. 2 for Members of the House and at Art. I, § 3, Cl. 3 for the Senate. 7
State authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding congressional elections has been described by the Court as the ability to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental rights involved. 8 The Court has upheld a variety of state laws designed to ensure that elections are fair and honest and orderly. 9 But the Court distinguished state laws that go beyond protection of the integrity and regularity of the election process, and instead operate to disadvantage a particular class of candidates 10 or negate the need for a general election. 11 The Court noted that the Elections Clause does not allow states to set term limits, which the Court viewed as disadvantaging a particular class of candidates and evading the dictates of the Qualifications Clause, 12 or ballot labels identifying candidates who disregarded voters’ instructions on term limits or declined to pledge support for them. 13 In its 1995 decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton , the Court explained: [T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints. 14
ArtI.S4.C1.2.1 States and Elections Clause
Test comment..
i can see it Sir.