A federal judge in Boston has widened an injunction preventing the Trump administration from using the U.S. Postal Service to enforce new federal requirements on mail-in voting, extending the restriction across the entire country.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled Tuesday that USPS cannot refuse to deliver mail ballots based on whether a state provides federal officials with lists identifying voters eligible to receive those ballots.
The ruling stems from President Donald Trump’s March executive order, which sought to impose new requirements on states as part of a broader effort to increase federal oversight of election procedures. Under the order, states that did not provide the requested voter information could potentially face restrictions affecting the delivery of mail ballots.
Talwani’s earlier injunction covered 23 states, most of them led by Democrats. Her latest order expands the protection nationwide.
Court Rejects Expanded Federal Role in State Elections
Talwani concluded that the Constitution gives states a central role in setting the rules governing elections and found that the executive branch could not independently impose the disputed requirements.
The judge also pointed to the approaching election season, warning that changes to mail-ballot procedures at this stage could generate confusion and weaken confidence in the voting process.
The nationwide order came after voting-rights groups, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sought to prevent USPS from implementing the administration’s policy anywhere in the country.
In granting the request, Talwani determined that protecting voters from potential disruption outweighed the administration’s effort to enforce the requirements.
The White House has maintained that the executive order is intended to strengthen election safeguards and said the administration would continue advancing Trump’s election policies within the law.
Supreme Court Could Decide Next
The administration has already asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put Talwani’s earlier injunction on hold. The justices have not yet ruled on that request.
Meanwhile, another federal court has taken a different view of the dispute. A Washington, D.C., judge previously declined to stop the executive order, finding that USPS had not yet completed the rules necessary to put it into effect. An appeals court subsequently left that decision intact.
Talwani said the circumstances have since shifted significantly. USPS has now proposed its implementation rule, while the November 3 midterm elections are fewer than 90 days away.
That change in circumstances, she concluded, makes court intervention more urgent because election-related procedures could otherwise be altered shortly before voters cast their ballots.
The decision adds another obstacle to the administration’s push for greater federal control over mail-in voting, with the Supreme Court now potentially playing the decisive role in determining whether the restrictions can proceed.
