A federal judge in Massachusetts on Tuesday lifted her injunction blocking the US Postal Service from implementing new mail-ballot restrictions tied to President Trump's March executive order, days after the Supreme Court lifted a related stay in a companion case. The order directs the Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to voters on state-provided absentee lists, a system the administration says is needed to prevent illegal voting, though independent studies have found such voting by non-citizens to be extremely rare.
US District Judge Indira Talwani, who had twice blocked the Postal Service from acting on the order in a lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters, withdrew her injunction after the Supreme Court's intervention in a related case removed the legal basis she had cited. In her earlier ruling granting the injunction, Talwani had written that the timing mattered because ballots would soon be in voters' hands.
The court finds it prudent to review the EO now, where less than 90 days pending before the midterms and the millions of citizens who rely on mail voting require clarity as to how or whether they will vote in November.
Judge Indira Talwani, US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
What the order changes
Trump's executive order, signed in March, calls on the Postal Service to build a new verification system tied to state absentee-voter rolls before delivering mail ballots, and directs states to compile lists of who is eligible to request one. Critics, including the League of Women Voters and allied voting-rights groups, argue the order intrudes on authority the Constitution assigns to Congress and the states, not the presidency, and warn it could disrupt ballot delivery for the millions of Americans who vote by mail. The administration counters that the measure protects election integrity.
The Supreme Court's action so far has addressed only the procedural question of whether Talwani's injunction was issued prematurely, not the underlying constitutionality of the executive order itself. The justices found she had acted before the Postal Service finalized its implementation plan, a threshold issue that left the merits of the case untouched.
What happens next
Democratic-led states, voting-rights organizations and other challengers, including cases tracked by Votebeat's election-law reporting, are preparing to seek new injunctions once the Postal Service's finalized plan is public, arguments that are expected to eventually reach the Supreme Court on the merits. With the 2026 midterms — all 435 House seats and 35 Senate seats — set for November 3, election officials in several states have said they need clarity soon to avoid confusion among voters who have relied on mail ballots in recent cycles. Trump himself has voted by mail in Florida in past elections, a point his opponents have raised in arguing the restrictions are unwarranted.
