Federal Judge Clears Path for Trump Mail-Voting Order as New Challenges Mount

Update to Pro-Voter Coalition Files New Complaint Against Illegal USPS Rule on Mail Voting, see also Developer – A Massachusetts judge lifted a nationwide injunction following a Supreme Court ruling, allowing new Postal Service restrictions to advance ahead of the midterms. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted the Trump administration’s request to reconsider her earlier decision and vacated the preliminary injunction she issued Aug. 11. That injunction had prohibited the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing the mail-ballot provisions of Trump’s executive order for elections held on or before Nov. 3. Talwani said the Supreme Court’s decision Monday in a separate challenge represented an intervening change in the law that required her to lift the injunction. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled that the earlier lawsuit brought by Democratic-led states was premature because the Postal Service had not finalized its regulations when the case was filed. The justices concluded that the states’ alleged injuries depended on speculation about whether a final rule would be issued, what it would require, and how it would be implemented. Applying that reasoning to the lawsuit brought by the League of Women Voters and other organizations, Talwani found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to overcome the same ripeness problem unless they amended their complaint to address the final rule that has since been issued. Even as Talwani lifted the injunction, she made clear that she was not endorsing the directive—describing it as “likely unconstitutional” and warning that implementing it so close to the midterms could unleash “chaos.” [Note – But: U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani left the door open for the order to be blocked again, allowing groups to request another preliminary injunction.]

“Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider [Doc. No. 196] and VACATES its August 11, 2026 Preliminary Injunction,” Talwani wrote in the nine-page order.

The decision does not establish that Trump’s directive—or the Postal Service regulations produced under it—is constitutional or otherwise lawful. Talwani emphasized that the Supreme Court itself acknowledged its decision “does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful.” The justices addressed whether the earlier challenge could proceed at that stage, not whether the president or the Postal Service possesses the authority to impose the restrictions…”

But see also