Judge Blocks Trump Mail-In Voting Directive Again

"The court has already answered and will again resolve the question clearly and affirmatively. The executive branch has no authority to regulate elections," wrote Judge Indira Talwani in a new opinion that blocks implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting.

Judge Indira Talwani’s second injunction

On Tuesday Judge Indira Talwani issued a second injunction that prevents the United States Postal Service from carrying out Section 3 of the executive order. Talwani had previously ruled that the White House order was unconstitutional; in the new opinion she said the court “finds it prudent to review the EO now, where less than 90 days pend before the midterms and the millions of citizens who rely on mail voting require clarity as to how or whether they will vote in November.”

The court explicitly preserved the existing electoral arrangements for elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026, writing: “As to those elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026, the court preserves the current electoral status quo, grants the Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion…enjoins the USPS’s implementation of Section 3 of the EO.”

Section 3 of President Trump’s executive order

The order at issue would have, according to the court’s description, “essentially placed the federal government in charge of deciding which voters in each state would receive mail-in ballots.” Talwani’s opinion focuses on Section 3’s text and directives and frames the legal question as whether that text is “facially unconstitutional.” The court said it need only determine facial constitutionality “based on the substance of the text’s directives.”

The 23 states’ constitutional claim

The litigation is an ongoing lawsuit between the federal government and 23 states. Talwani’s opinion concluded that the states “are likely to succeed on the merits” of their claim that Section 3 violates the constitutional separation of powers. The opinion also noted the federal government’s legal response, saying the government’s “sole attempts to grapple with the actual merits of Plaintiff Organizations’ constitutional challenge are their briefly presented unitary executive arguments.”

The Trump administration’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court

The Trump administration has formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case and reverse the lower-court decision. The district court’s new order keeps the electoral status quo in place for elections occurring before or on November 3, 2026 while the legal fight continues.

What this means for voters, the United States Postal Service, and the states

• Voters: The court singled out “the millions of citizens who rely on mail voting” as a central practical concern, and it preserved the current arrangements for elections through November 3, 2026 so those voters will face no immediate change in how mail ballots are allocated.
• United States Postal Service: The injunction specifically enjoins the USPS from implementing Section 3 of the executive order, preventing any operational changes that would have followed from that provision while the litigation proceeds.
• The 23 states and plaintiffs: The court’s finding that the states are “likely to succeed on the merits” reinforces the plaintiffs’ separation-of-powers theory and keeps their challenge at the center of the dispute as the parties seek higher-court review.

Talwani’s opinion frames the dispute tightly around text and authority: whether Section 3’s directives, taken at face value, cross a constitutional line by allowing the executive branch to regulate elections. With the Supreme Court petition filed, the case is now positioned to move beyond the district court; until any higher-court resolution, the injunction maintains the status quo for mail voting in the run-up to the 2026 midterms.

Original reporting: CyberScoop