Federal judge again blocks Trump's mail ballot order just before midterms

Federal Judge Halts Trump Administration's Mail-In Ballot Rule Days Before Midterm Mailings Begin

A federal judge in Massachusetts has temporarily blocked a Trump administration rule that would have restricted how states handle mail-in ballots for the upcoming midterm elections, issuing a fresh 14-day restraining order just days before the first ballots are scheduled to go out.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani ruled Thursday that the U.S. Postal Service cannot enforce its new requirements on states, finding that election officials do not have sufficient time or resources to overhaul their systems before voters begin receiving ballots. Her decision comes roughly a week before mail ballots are expected to start landing in voters' mailboxes across several states.

"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.

The rule at issue would require states to submit detailed recipient information through a Postal Service portal and meet specific envelope and barcode standards. Under the policy, USPS has said it will not accept outbound mail ballots from states that fail to comply. The Postal Service maintains the rule does not determine voter eligibility or cross-reference submissions with state voter rolls, leaving states in control of who may cast a mail ballot.

The litigation stems from an executive order President Donald Trump issued in March aimed at reshaping mail-in voting procedures. His original order, issued last year, was previously blocked on constitutional grounds, with critics arguing the president lacks the authority to dictate election administration, a power the Constitution reserves to states and, in certain circumstances, Congress.

Democrats and voting rights groups refiled their challenges after the Supreme Court issued a procedural ruling earlier this week. The high court did not weigh in on the legality of Trump's order itself, instead finding that Talwani had acted prematurely in her initial injunction. A separate federal judge in Washington had also declined to block the order earlier in the year, calling that challenge premature.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, the administration moved forward by publishing a formal Postal Service rule, which effectively reset the legal fight. Talwani then removed her earlier injunction, and plaintiffs quickly returned to court with renewed arguments now anchored in the final rule rather than the executive order alone.

A hearing in the case is scheduled for September 3, and the ruling is expected to be appealed, potentially sending the dispute back to the Supreme Court before November.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is among two dozen Democratic attorneys general who filed one of the lawsuits, praised the ruling.

"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 in a statement.

The stakes are high: nearly one-third of Americans vote by mail, and election officials across the country have warned that there is not enough time to adapt to the new directives before the midterms. The original Trump order sought additional documentation requirements for voter registration, such as a U.S. passport, a REAL ID or military ID showing citizenship, or a government-issued photo identification paired with proof of citizenship.

Trump has long been a vocal critic of mail-in voting, a practice he has falsely blamed for his 2020 loss to former President Joe Biden. However, the president himself votes by mail as a registered voter in Florida.

A 2025 report from the Brookings Institution found that mail-in voting fraud was recorded in roughly four cases out of every 10 million ballots cast during general elections from 2016 through 2022, undercutting claims of widespread fraud tied to the practice. The analysis relied in part on a database that its source acknowledges is not comprehensive.

The outcome of the legal fight will have an outsized impact on November, with millions of ballots potentially hanging in the balance as the courts weigh how far the executive branch can go in setting the rules of American elections.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.