A federal judge on Thursday again blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting mail-in voting, halting the directive, at least for now, for a second time with only about a week before the first mail ballots are expected to be sent out for the upcoming midterm elections.
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani issued a 14-day temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the new U.S. Postal Service rule implementing the order.
The ruling is likely to be quickly appealed and could soon make its way back to the Supreme Court, days after the nation’s highest court handed down a procedural decision that allowed the administration to move forward.
Thursday’s ruling comes after Democrats and voting rights groups refiled their lawsuits to comply with the recent Supreme Court decision. The high court did not address the legality of Trump’s order, only finding that Talwani had acted too soon.
JACKSON RIPS INTO SUPREME COURT COLLEAGUES’ ‘SERIOUS LEGAL ERROR’ ON TRUMP MAIL-IN VOTING ORDER
The administration has now issued a formal rule governing how states must prepare and submit mail ballots for USPS acceptance, effectively taking the legal fight back to square one.
The case will have a significant impact on November’s midterms, as nearly one-third of Americans vote by mail and election officials argue there is not enough time to amend their systems to comply with the new directives.
The Postal Service said it will not accept outbound mail ballots if states do not submit required recipient information through its portal and meet the rule’s envelope and barcode requirements.
“Plaintiff states have neither time nor funds to design new mail ballots, seek approval of the new designs, order production of mail ballots, update their own election management systems, train election officials to use the USPS portal and upload citizen data to the portal, all before the midterms,” Talwani wrote in Thursday’s ruling.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for Sept. 3.
Democrats and voting rights groups argue that the Postal Service rule and Trump’s order are unconstitutional. They say the Constitution grants states, as well as Congress in some cases, the authority to establish election rules, noting that the president and Postal Service do not have that power. USPS, however, says the rule does not determine voter eligibility or compare submissions with state voter rolls, and that states retain control over who may vote by mail.
“This rule is a clear attempt by the federal government to interfere in elections it has no power to control. Today, a federal court halted it before this administration could wreak havoc on our elections,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of two dozen Democrat attorneys general who filed one of the lawsuits, said in a statement.
Trump’s first executive order, which was issued last year, was blocked on those grounds.
The order attempted to change election procedures, including by requiring additional physical documentation to register to vote, such as a U.S. passport, a REAL ID or military ID indicating U.S. citizenship or a government-issued photo ID accompanied by proof of citizenship.
Trump has long criticized mail-in voting, which he falsely attributes to his 2020 election loss to former President Joe Biden. But Trump himself uses mail-in voting to cast his ballot as a registered voter in Florida.
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FROM RESTRICTING MAIL-IN BALLOTS AHEAD OF MIDTERMS
According to a 2025 report by the Brookings Institution, mail-in voting fraud was recorded in only about four cases out of every 10 million mail ballots cast, contradicting claims by Trump and his allies that election fraud is widespread. The analysis covered general elections from 2016 through 2022 and relied in part on a database that its source says is not comprehensive.
Trump issued the executive order targeting mail-in voting in March, leading to legal challenges.
In a separate case, a federal judge in Washington declined earlier this year to block the order at that stage, finding the challenge premature because the administration had not yet implemented the directive.
The Supreme Court struck down one of those holds earlier this week.
Talwani removed the second injunction a short time later. The plaintiffs then refiled their challenges, pointing to the Postal Service’s publishing of its final rule, in an effort to build a stronger case.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
