A federal judge in Massachusetts on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction, halting the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from enforcing a specific part of President Donald Trump's executive order concerning mail-in ballot regulations ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted the injunction to prevent the USPS from implementing or enforcing Section 3 of Executive Order 14399 for the federal elections scheduled for November 3, or any prior federal election.
This judicial action means the USPS is barred from refusing to transmit mail-in or absentee ballots under the challenged section. It also blocks the agency from establishing new rules outlined in the executive order for the November elections. However, the injunction does not prohibit the federal government from issuing non-binding guidance to the USPS regarding ballot-mail envelopes.
Expected Appeal and Executive Order Background
The Trump administration is anticipated to appeal Tuesday's decision to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. Judge Talwani had conducted a hearing last Friday to consider the plaintiffs' renewed request for this preliminary injunction.
President Trump signed the executive order in March, citing it as a measure to enhance election integrity. The order includes directives such as requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to compile and provide states with lists of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote. It also instructs the USPS to develop new standards for mail-in ballots and directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prioritize investigations into state and local election officials who distribute federal ballots to individuals deemed ineligible to vote.
“Cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible. Democrats want to use it for cheating,” President Trump previously stated.
Prior Legal Challenges to the Executive Order
This latest ruling follows weeks after the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration's attempt to enforce other provisions of the same executive order while a separate legal challenge progressed. In a 2-1 decision on July 25, the appeals court denied the DOJ's request to pause a June ruling that had blocked several other provisions of Trump's order across 23 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia.
That earlier lawsuit was initiated by states including California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington. These states contended that the Constitution grants primary responsibility for administering federal elections to the states, and argued that President Trump had overstepped his authority by directing federal agencies to impose new voting requirements.
Judge Talwani had issued the initial injunction blocking multiple provisions of the executive order in June, determining that they likely exceeded the president's constitutional authority. The appeals court upheld that injunction on July 25, allowing the administration's appeal to proceed.
The Department of Justice had previously informed the appeals court that it might seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court if its appeal efforts proved unsuccessful.
In response to Tuesday's ruling, the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts expressed approval, emphasizing that the decision safeguards voting rights for citizens who depend on mail-in ballots. Judge Talwani also mandated that the plaintiff organizations involved in Tuesday's ruling post a nominal $100 bond by August 18.
