A federal judge on Thursday reimposed a freeze on President Trump’s plan to let the U.S. Postal Service block delivery of mail-in ballots, just days after the Supreme Court had cleared the way for the restrictions to take effect. The ruling sets up an almost certain return to the nation’s highest court with less than 10 weeks before midterm elections that will decide control of Congress.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani blocked the Postal Service from moving ahead with its new mail-ballot rules for at least 14 days while she weighs a more permanent ban. In an 11-page decision, Talwani concluded that Trump’s proposals were an unconstitutional attempt to usurp powers reserved to the states under the Constitution.
A Legal Whiplash
The case has been bouncing between courts at a dizzying pace. Talwani first blocked the key provisions of Trump’s March executive order in June, ruling that the president lacked authority to create centralized lists of citizens or empower the Postal Service to decide who could vote by mail. The Trump administration appealed, and the Supreme Court on August 24 lifted Talwani’s previous injunction on narrow procedural grounds.
Within days, the Postal Service unveiled a 95-page proposal to implement the restrictions, creating widespread confusion among election officials. States that had already purchased mail ballot envelopes for the November cycle suddenly faced the prospect of needing to redesign and reprint them at enormous cost. Massachusetts had spent $3 million on envelopes that would not comply, and Delaware had no budget left for replacements.
Talwani’s new ruling halts the Postal Service again, at least temporarily. She has scheduled a hearing for September 3 on whether to issue a permanent injunction.
Constitutional Battle Lines
The heart of the dispute is whether the president can use executive authority to reshape how states conduct elections. Trump’s order, issued in March, directed the Postal Service to establish a system allowing the agency to block mail ballot deliveries to voters not on a list presubmitted by state election officials. The administration cast the move as an effort to prevent noncitizen voting, a claim for which officials have provided no evidence of widespread fraud.
Twenty-three Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia challenged the order, arguing that the Constitution grants states, not the White House, primary responsibility for administering federal elections. Talwani agreed in her original June ruling, finding that the executive order likely exceeded presidential authority.
The Trump administration is expected to appeal Thursday’s decision quickly, which would probably send the case back before the Supreme Court. Legal experts say the justices could be asked to rule on the merits of the executive order itself, rather than just procedural questions about whether the lower court had jurisdiction.
Election Officials Left Scrambling
The repeated reversals have left state and local election officials in an impossible position. Nearly half of the suing states have already purchased mail ballot envelopes for the current election cycle that would not comply with Trump’s rules. Election administrators say they need clarity weeks before ballots go out, and the legal uncertainty is making that impossible.
The Postal Service processed nearly 100 million mail ballots during the 2024 election. Any disruption to that system in November could affect millions of voters, particularly in states with large mail-voting populations such as California, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold praised the ruling, saying Trump will not be able to use the Postal Service to control which voters receive a mail ballot and cannot use the DOJ to intimidate election officials into following his unlawful order. The Constitution is clear, Griswold said: states run elections, not Trump.
The broader legal fight reflects a pattern of judicial pushback against Trump’s attempts to assert federal control over elections. Courts have blocked major portions of two separate executive orders related to voting, including one requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration. With the Supreme Court likely to weigh in before November, the outcome could reshape how Americans cast ballots for elections to come.
discussion