Judge Indira Talwani in Boston ruled Friday, for the third time, that the Trump administration’s plans to restrict mail-in voting are likely illegal. She said the plans should not be allowed to take effect before the midterm election, according to The New York Times.
She had already stopped the U.S. Postal Service from moving forward with a temporary block set to expire on Sept. 10. Friday’s order keeps that block in place with no end date.
The decision still leaves the larger fight unresolved as state election officials run short on time to mail ballots. The Trump administration had already asked the Supreme Court to review the temporary block, and the justices are likely to decide President Trump’s plans before Election Day.
The latest order followed a two-hour hearing in Boston
Judge Talwani issued the ruling a day after lawyers for Democratic-led states and voting rights groups faced lawyers for the Postal Service and a smaller group of Republican-led states that back the rule. The hearing in Boston lasted two hours. This ruling comes after the Supreme Court let Trump move forward with his mail voting order.
The Postal Service rule would require states to tell the agency which voters may use mail-in ballots. States would also have to use a new envelope that can be scanned and tied to individual voters. States that do not comply could see the Postal Service hold back ballot mail. This is not the first time a federal court has blocked a Trump administration policy, as a judge recently ruled its voter citizenship database broke federal law.
Judge Talwani said she believed states and election officials when they warned it was too late to make those changes without widespread mishaps and delays. The election is now only 60 days away.
She wrote that the rule appeared to push states to act against their own privacy laws. She also wrote that the requirements appeared certain to leave some voters unable to receive a mail ballot.
“Having considered this series of hurdles for officials against the backdrop of an impending election, and mindful of the fact that any minor malfunction will result in the denial of mail ballots, the court concludes that disenfranchisement for plaintiff organizations’ members, regardless of residence, is practically inevitable,” Judge Talwani wrote.
She questioned why the Postal Service was racing to put the rule in place for the midterms while calling it a relatively routine step that needed only minor clerical work. She cast doubt on Mr. Trump’s claims that the rule was needed for election security, writing that the Postal Service’s rationale “includes no evidence relating to fraudulent mail voting to support the rushed implementation.”
Judge Talwani wrote that she would not stop Republican-led states that support the rule from following it on their own. She also said Friday’s order dealt only with use of the rule in this election cycle, and that courts could later decide whether the rule is lawful as a whole.
As in her two earlier rulings, she wrote that the rule appeared to exceed the Postal Service’s statutory authority by giving the agency broad power over election mail beyond what lawmakers intended. She added that each passing week made it less realistic for states to comply.
North Carolina Attorney General Jeff Jackson said in a statement that the administration’s Supreme Court request on Thursday came as the state was scheduled to send ballots out on Friday.
“That would throw our election into chaos,” Mr. Jackson said. “The ballots are printed, the process is underway, and North Carolinians deserve a lawful and orderly election.”
Published: Sep 5, 2026 08:30 am