The decision by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston prevents the federal government from implementing a rule that would have added new layers of bureaucracy to an election process traditionally administered by the states. The regulation was recently finalized as part of a broader Trump administration push to assert federal control over voting procedures nationwide.
Court Finds Postal Service Rule Likely Unlawful
Talwani concluded that the regulation is most likely unlawful because the president cannot insert the federal government into elections without express authorization from Congress. “The court finds plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits of their claims,” she wrote in her ruling, issued Thursday from the federal courthouse in Boston.
The Postal Service regulation would have required the agency to track mail-in ballots and potentially reject those submitted by individuals not appearing on a federal list of eligible voters. The rule represented a key provision of Trump’s executive order on mail-in ballots, which directed the Postal Service to take on an unprecedented role in verifying voter eligibility.
The injunction applies to two consolidated cases before Talwani — one brought by the League of Women Voters and a coalition of voting rights organizations, and another brought by a group of states led by New York. Both lawsuits argued that the federal government overstepped its constitutional authority by attempting to regulate state-administered elections.
No Evidence of Mail-In Ballot Fraud
The administration presented no evidence to support its claims of widespread mail-in ballot fraud, a central justification for the regulation. Talwani explicitly noted that the government had not offered “any evidence regarding fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting” during the proceedings.
The government’s interest in “correcting an unsubstantiated problem through likely unconstitutional means is dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement,” Talwani wrote. Her ruling draws a sharp distinction between the administration’s public fraud claims and the evidentiary record presented in court.
Trump has frequently criticized mail-in ballots, asserting without proof that they enable rampant fraud. These claims persist despite the broad use of mail-in voting across both Republican and Democratic strongholds, with millions of Americans relying on the method in every recent election cycle.
States Face Impossible Timeline
Addressing the compressed timeline before the November election, Talwani emphasized that states “have neither time nor funds” to comply with the regulation’s requirements. Implementation would demand updating election management systems, training staff on new federal procedures, and coordinating with Postal Service tracking infrastructure — all within weeks of a national election.
Based on the evidence before her, states’ compliance with the Trump administration’s requirements before the 2026 midterms would be “practically impossible,” Talwani wrote. The ruling effectively acknowledges that even if the regulation were ultimately upheld, the logistical barriers to implementation before November may be insurmountable.
The block on the regulation will remain in place for at least 14 days, leaving the administration with a shrinking window to act before the election. New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose state is part of the coalition challenging the rule, called the decision a necessary halt to federal overreach. “This rule is a clear attempt by the federal government to interfere in elections it has no power to control,” James said in a statement. “Today, a federal court halted it before this administration could wreak havoc on our elections.”
What Happens Next
The Trump administration could seek to quickly overturn Talwani’s decision by rushing to the Supreme Court, which has already weighed in on related litigation this week. The high court lifted a separate injunction Monday in a similar case brought by California and 22 other states, finding that Talwani had acted too hastily in her initial ruling. However, the Supreme Court did not address whether the Postal Service regulation or the underlying executive order is lawful.
In a separate decision Wednesday, Talwani lifted an earlier injunction she had imposed that blocked vital elements of Trump’s executive order in one of the two cases before her. The distinction between the various injunctions and rulings has created a complex legal landscape as the election approaches.
While the Postal Service regulation is now blocked, a separate provision of Trump’s executive order requiring the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of eligible voters and send them to states remains in effect. That provision was not addressed by Thursday’s ruling and continues to move forward.
The administration faces mounting legal pressure on multiple fronts as the 2026 midterms approach. With the Postal Service regulation blocked and time running short, the practical question is whether any meaningful portion of the executive order can be implemented before voters head to the polls. State election officials are already preparing for November under existing procedures, and any last-minute federal intervention — even if legally permitted — risks creating confusion and administrative chaos at a moment when stability is paramount.
— Sofia Alvarez, government desk, AXO News