Summary
- Judge Indira Talwani blocks USPS mail-in voting rule
- Trump’s executive order targets mail-in voting restrictions
- Talwani cites constitutional authority of states over elections
- ACLU and voting rights groups support the injunction
A federal judge on Aug. 11 blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing part of President Donald Trump‘s executive order that aims to tighten rules for mail-in voting ahead of November elections that will decide control of Congress.
The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani in Boston marked the latest setback for Trump’s push to expand the federal government’s role in overseeing elections.
Trump, a Republican, signed his executive order in March after years of calling for tighter rules on voting by mail and pushing the false claim that his 2020 election defeat was the result of widespread voter fraud.
The executive order called on states to provide lists of eligible voters who may receive mail ballots. If states did not comply, USPS would have refused to deliver the ballots.
White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement: “The entire Trump Administration will continue lawfully enacting the agenda President Trump was elected to enact — which includes the safety and security of American elections.”
Talwani’s decision effectively expanded on an earlier order she issued in June that prevented Trump’s administration from implementing it in 23 mostly Democratic-led states.
Several voting rights groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union asked the judge to go further and bar the USPS altogether from implementing the order anywhere in the nation.
In granting the plaintiffs’ request, Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, wrote that the executive branch of the federal government had no authority to regulate elections, a responsibility that the U.S. Constitution assigns to individual states.
“The [executive order] is presently causing confusion and threatening both increasing chaos and an erosion of trust in our democracy,” Talwani wrote. “Enfranchisement heavily outweighs the executive’s attempt to unconstitutionally insert itself into the domain of election regulation.”
Sophia Lin Lakin, a voting rights lawyer with the ACLU, said in a statement: “Today’s ruling sends another necessary message to an administration that continues to weaponize portions of the government to sow chaos into our elections.”
The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put Talwani’s earlier decision on hold, arguing the states’ case was premature as agencies had not yet finalized plans to implement Trump’s order.
In a similar case brought by the Democratic Party, a federal judge in D.C. declined to immediately block the executive order, finding it would be premature to do so because the USPS had not yet issued its rule.
An appeals court affirmed that decision.
Talwani said the case was now ripe for a decision because the USPS had proposed a rule, and the election was closer.
(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston and Luc Cohen in New York; editing by Franklin Paul and Nia Williams)
