Obama-appointed judge blocks Trump’s mail-ballot safeguards nationwide

by DBS Wire

President Donald Trump’s attempt to impose new safeguards on mail-in voting has been blocked nationwide less than three months before the 2026 midterm elections—and the administration’s best remaining hope may now reside at the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee in Massachusetts, issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday prohibiting the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing Section 3 of Trump’s March election-integrity order during the November 3 election or any earlier federal contest.

The ruling means USPS cannot refuse to handle an absentee ballot because a voter’s name is missing from a new federal or state participation list. It also freezes work on the order’s specific ballot-envelope, barcode and tracking regulations for this year’s elections.

The nationwide injunction goes further than a separate June ruling that protected 23 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia from several sections of Trump’s order.

The administration has already asked the Supreme Court to lift that earlier block. As of Wednesday morning, the justices had not ruled on the emergency request. So, once again, a major Trump policy is sitting outside the courthouse waiting to see whether the Supreme Court will let it through the door.

Trump signed Executive Order 14399, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” on March 31. The White House argued that the federal government has a duty to prevent noncitizens from voting and to protect the security of ballots sent through the United States mail.

“The right to vote in Federal elections is reserved exclusively for citizens of the United States under the Constitution and Federal law,” the order declared.

Among other provisions, the order directed the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration to help compile state-by-state lists of voting-age citizens. Section 3 instructed the postmaster general to develop regulations requiring official ballot envelopes, automation-compatible designs and unique Intelligent Mail barcodes to improve tracking. More controversially, it directed USPS to transmit mail ballots only for voters appearing on designated state participation lists.

The White House fact sheet described the proposal as a way of “ensuring that only eligible absentee or mail-in voters receive absentee or mail-in ballots.” Trump has been much less diplomatic in describing the problem.

“Cheating on mail-in voting is legendary,” Trump said. “It’s horrible. Democrats want to use it for cheating.”

That is vintage Trump: no committee-written language, no soft jazz playing in the background—just the accusation delivered with a sledgehammer. But Talwani concluded that the president cannot use an executive order to place the Postal Service in the middle of state election administration.

Talwani’s 27-page order said the federal government had largely avoided defending the constitutionality of Trump’s directive on its merits. Instead, the administration argued that the case was premature and that the challengers lacked standing to sue before final USPS regulations were completed. The judge rejected that argument.

“The executive branch has no authority to regulate elections,” Talwani wrote.

She found that the voting organizations challenging the order were likely to succeed on their claims that the president had exceeded his authority and that USPS could be directed to violate federal postal laws. Talwani was especially concerned about forcing major changes while election preparations were already underway.

“The impending election provides a short timeline in which election officials, voters, and the public at large need to be confident as to the governing rules,” she wrote.

The judge said that uncertainty surrounding the proposed requirements risked confusion, administrative disorder and eligible voters having their ballots rejected. She also made a factual finding certain to infuriate Trump and his supporters:

“The record is devoid of any declarations or other proffered evidence to suggest that mail-in voting has resulted in voting by non-citizens.”

That does not prove mail voting is immune from fraud. It means the administration did not place evidence before this particular court sufficient to substantiate that claim. And therein lies the administration’s courtroom problem. Declaring fraud “legendary” may work at a rally. Federal judges generally expect affidavits, data and legal authority.

The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, which helped bring the lawsuit, praised the ruling as a victory for people who depend on absentee voting.

“The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts commends the court for upholding one of our most sacred constitutional rights: the right to vote.”

The organization continued:

“We are pleased to see this ruling and are committed to remaining in the fight to protect voting rights—not just for the Bay Staters who rely on mail voting, but for every American who utilizes this safe, secure, and trusted tool.”

Law Forward Policy Counsel Rachel Snyder offered an even broader constitutional argument:

“The President cannot rewrite how Americans vote by executive order. States and Congress set the rules for elections, not the Postal Service, and not the White House.”

The White House, Justice Department and Postal Service had not issued an immediate public response to Tuesday’s injunction.

This is not the administration’s first defeat over the order. In June, Talwani blocked other provisions from operating in the Democratic-led states challenging them. A divided panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals left that injunction in place on July 25.

The administration and a group of Republican-led states subsequently sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. In court papers, they characterized the earlier injunction as “bizarre” and argued that the executive order did not directly force states or voters to do anything. Their filing said the order merely instructed federal agencies to consider reforms intended to advance Trump’s election-integrity goals.

The states challenging the administration responded that the policy would force election officials to redesign envelopes, alter established procedures and educate millions of voters about new federal requirements immediately before the midterms.

The constitutional fight is therefore larger than whether mail ballots should carry barcodes. The central question is who gets to make the rules. The Constitution gives state legislatures authority over the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections, while allowing Congress to alter those regulations. It does not explicitly hand that power to the president.

That is the weak spot in Trump’s approach.

Republicans can make a perfectly legitimate case for citizenship verification, trackable ballot envelopes, cleaner voter rolls and firm deadlines. Americans ought to be able to demand an election system that is both accessible and auditable without being told that verification itself is somehow sinister.

But even a sensible policy requires a lawful vehicle. If the authority belongs to Congress, the White House cannot simply install a presidential bypass because lawmakers failed to act.

The injunction does not prohibit USPS from offering voluntary, nonbinding guidance on ballot-envelope design. Nor does it settle the underlying case permanently. It freezes the contested requirements for the approaching election while the litigation proceeds.

Still, the practical effect is that Trump’s new mail-ballot system will not take effect nationwide this November unless a higher court intervenes.

Republicans now have two choices. They can win the argument in Congress and enact clear election rules through legislation, or they can place another major policy in the hands of nine justices and hope the constitutional math works out.

The clock, meanwhile, is already ticking toward November.

WIRE SOURCES