Federal Judge Says Trump Team Defied Mail-Voting Injunction With New USPS Rule
A federal judge in Massachusetts has concluded that the Trump administration violated a nationwide court order when the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) finalized a new rule tightening mail-in voting procedures ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who previously blocked key portions of President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail voting, said in a ruling issued Tuesday that federal officials “violated the preliminary injunction” by moving forward with a regulation tied to that order despite her earlier prohibition on implementing it for the 2026 elections.
Background: Trump’s Executive Order on Mail Voting
Trump’s March 2026 executive order sought to sharply restrict vote-by-mail by expanding federal oversight of state election procedures and conditioning USPS handling of ballot mail on new eligibility and certification requirements. The order directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile voter eligibility lists for each state and instructed USPS to adopt binding regulations governing which voters could receive and return mail ballots.
Voting-rights groups and a coalition of Democratic-led states quickly challenged the order, arguing that it usurped state control over elections and threatened to disenfranchise eligible voters who rely on mail ballots. In June, Judge Talwani issued a sweeping preliminary injunction, holding that key provisions of Trump’s order were likely unconstitutional and exceeded executive authority because elections are administered by states and local governments, not the federal executive branch.
Talwani declared that the executive branch “has no authority to regulate elections,” finding that the order’s attempt to create a federal voter list and empower USPS to decide who could vote by mail violated the Constitution’s separation of powers and long-standing statutory limits on federal election involvement.
Nationwide Block on USPS Implementation
On August 11, Judge Talwani went further, issuing a nationwide injunction specifically barring USPS from implementing Section 3 of Trump’s order and from “completing rulemaking” tied to that provision for the November 2026 elections or any earlier contests. That section would have required the Postal Service to refuse delivery of certain ballots deemed “noncompliant” and to withhold ballot mailings in states that did not certify federal voter lists.
In that ruling, Talwani concluded that the order was likely unconstitutional and was already causing “irreparable harm” by sowing confusion among voters and organizations that assist them with mail voting. She emphasized that blocking USPS from carrying out Trump’s directives would not harm the public, given the risk of widespread disenfranchisement if the changes took effect.
Voting-rights groups later told the court that the administration nonetheless pressed ahead: USPS finalized a national rule incorporating the disputed mail-voting restrictions, even as it acknowledged in the rule text that it could not implement the changes for the 2026 elections unless Talwani’s injunction was lifted.
Judge: Administration “Cannot Contend” It Misunderstood Order
In her latest five-page order, Talwani rejected the government’s argument that it had complied with her directive by promising not to apply the new rule in November 2026. She wrote that “defendants cannot contend that they misunderstood the scope of the court’s order,” noting that the injunction explicitly barred USPS both from implementing the provision and from completing rulemaking for the upcoming elections.
Talwani pointed to language in the final USPS rule that referenced her injunction, which she said showed that the agency knew the court’s order remained in force but chose to finalize the regulation anyway. She concluded that, despite government assurances that it “takes its obligation to comply with court orders very seriously,” the administration had violated the injunction.
Voting-rights organizations that brought the Massachusetts case argued that simply issuing the rule – even with an implementation caveat – flouted the court’s bar on “completing rulemaking” and risked chilling participation by voters who might assume new restrictions were already in effect.
Related Litigation and Supreme Court Action
The clash over Talwani’s injunction comes amid a broader, complex legal battle over Trump’s mail-voting order in multiple courts. In June, Talwani’s initial ruling blocking core parts of the order was upheld in July by the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the president’s directive would “sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters” if allowed to take effect before the midterms.
Separately, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., Emmet Sullivan, ruled on July 1 that USPS could not implement Trump’s mail ballot delivery plan because it violated a settlement reached in 2020 litigation over election mail delays. Sullivan said the proposed Postal Service rule conflicted with commitments the agency had previously made to prioritize timely delivery of election mail and avoid rejecting ballots based on new federal compliance standards.
On August 24 and 25, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped into the fray, allowing the Trump administration to move forward with some parts of the executive order while leaving in place other restrictions on USPS. The Court lifted part of Talwani’s June injunction that applied to a group of 23 states and the District of Columbia, clearing the way for certain federal election-related directives to proceed pending further litigation.
However, a separate nationwide injunction issued by Talwani on August 11 – the one focused on USPS implementation and rulemaking – remains in effect, meaning the Postal Service is still barred from carrying out the controversial mail ballot procedures for the November elections.
Implications for Voters and Election Officials
The finding that the Trump administration violated a court order deepens concerns among voting-rights advocates about federal interference in state-run elections and the reliability of mail voting infrastructure ahead of the midterms. They argue that repeated attempts to alter mail ballot rules, even when blocked, create uncertainty for voters and election officials who must interpret rapidly changing guidance.
Election administrators in many states have expanded mail voting in recent years to accommodate shifting voter preferences and logistical challenges. Trump and his allies, by contrast, have portrayed vote-by-mail as vulnerable to fraud and have pursued legal and policy changes to limit its use, despite repeated findings that documented mail ballot fraud is rare and closely monitored by state authorities.
With multiple overlapping court orders, appeals, and regulatory actions still unfolding, states are watching closely to see whether any of Trump’s federal mail-voting directives will ultimately take effect before ballots are printed and mailed for the November 2026 elections. For now, the core provisions empowering USPS to police which ballots can be sent or delivered remain on hold under Talwani’s nationwide injunction, even as the Supreme Court has opened the door for other parts of the executive order to proceed in some jurisdictions.
