WASHINGTON, Aug. 28 (Nationwide Times) — A federal judge has temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing new mail-ballot requirements tied to President Donald Trump’s executive order, putting the rules on hold for 14 days as the legal fight continues.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued the temporary restraining order Aug. 27 in federal court in Boston. The order restored a nationwide block on the Postal Service’s implementation of the plan. A hearing on whether to issue a longer-lasting injunction is scheduled for Sept. 3.
The case could return to the Supreme Court, which previously issued a procedural ruling affecting Talwani’s earlier injunction without deciding whether Trump’s executive order is lawful.
What would the Postal Service rules do?
The Postal Service’s final rule, issued Aug. 21, would require states to provide lists of voters eligible to receive mail ballots. It also would require states to use a specific envelope format that had been reviewed and assigned a unique barcode.
The changes stem from Trump’s March executive order, which sought to create a federal voter list and give the Postal Service a role in election-related procedures. Election administration is largely handled by states, and the new requirements have been challenged by Democratic-led states, voting-rights organizations and the Democratic Party.
Why did Talwani block the plan?
Talwani wrote that states did not have enough time or money to make the required changes before the midterm elections. That work could include designing new mail ballots, obtaining approval for them, ordering ballots, updating election systems, training election officials and uploading voter data to a Postal Service portal, she wrote.
The latest order followed a series of earlier rulings. Talwani had previously issued a nationwide injunction against the Postal Service’s implementation. After the Supreme Court’s procedural order, she lifted that injunction while reconsidering the case. The Postal Service’s final rule then restarted the challenge, leading to the new temporary restraining order.
What role does Washington, D.C., play?
The broader dispute includes a separate case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In July, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued a nationwide order blocking the Postal Service from implementing the plan. Sullivan cited a 2020 settlement involving the agency.
Another D.C. federal judge, Carl J. Nichols, declined in May to immediately block Trump’s executive order. Nichols concluded that such action was premature because the Postal Service had not yet issued its rule.
The latest restraining order was issued by Talwani in Boston, but the D.C. litigation and possible appeals could affect how the policy is reviewed by federal appellate courts.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Supreme Court’s Aug. 24 unsigned order dealt with the status of Talwani’s earlier injunction. It did not rule on whether Trump’s executive order or the Postal Service’s actions were legal.
The court wrote that its decision did not mean that measures taken by the government to implement the executive order would necessarily be lawful. The court added that further proceedings would determine that question.
The administration and the challengers may seek review in the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or the Supreme Court. The materials in the case do not establish whether the administration has made a final decision on an appeal.
For now, Talwani’s 14-day order prevents the Postal Service from putting the new requirements into effect nationwide while the court considers whether the restrictions should remain blocked for a longer period.
