Federal judge halts USPS from implementing new mail ballot rules ahead of midterms
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Friday to prevent the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in ballots. The Trump administration filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court late Thursday on the federal judge’s previous order.
Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani issued the order Friday barring the Trump administration from further implementation of Trump’s executive order that sought to limit mail voting for the midterms. States and civil rights groups said the order would strip states’ rights to administer their elections, while Trump and his allies had argued the order safeguards elections from wrongdoers.
Download the Straight Arrow app today to get the stories that matter free from manipulation, bias or agenda.
Point phone camera here
Talwani noted in her 49-page order that her injunction is based on an amended complaint the states filed after the final rule went into effect on Aug. 21.
“Throughout its body of election legislation, Congress has never delegated its Elections Clause power to the USPS,” the judge wrote. “Unauthorized by the Elections Clause, the Final Rule clashes with Congress’s statutory scheme, and is unconstitutional where it intrudes not only on Congress’s Elections Clause powers but also that power left to the States.”
Civil rights groups, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, the District of Columbia and 22 attorneys general filed the lawsuit against Trump and the Postal Service in April, writing that the executive order interferes with states’ rights to administer their elections.
“We secured a court order officially blocking Donald Trump’s USPS from unlawfully imposing burdensome requirements on mail voting while our case continues,” Massachusetts Attorney General Joy Campbell wrote on Facebook Friday. Campbell is co-lead of the lawsuit’s coalition. “Massachusetts won’t stand by while a wannabe King threatens our democracy. We’ll keep fighting — and winning — to protect your right to vote.”
Attorneys general from Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas joined the lawsuit in defense of the Trump administration. They filed a joint “friend-of-the-court” brief stating their intent to comply with the executive order.
“Let’s be clear, we run our elections well in Alabama, but this is still happening right here in our state, with multiple documented cases of absentee ballot fraud just in the past year,” Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a July 6 release. “And while we in Alabama can do all we can to secure our elections, Alabamians deserve to know that national elections held in other states are also secure since they affect us as well.”
Talwani combined the case with a similar lawsuit the same attorneys general filed on Aug. 26 after USPS finalized the mail-in ballot rule.
The Justice Department submitted a formal appeal to the Supreme Court Thursday, asking the court to consider permanently lifting Talwani’s previous order and permitting the Postal Service to fully implement its rule change before ballots are sent for the November General Election.
According to The Associated Press, North Carolina is set to distribute ballots Friday, regardless of how the lawsuit proceeds. The state’s executive director of the State Board of Elections told reporters Thursday that it’s prepared to pivot if a ruling modified the ballots.
Temporary order is lifted
Talwani previously issued a 14-day injunction on the rule applicable to elections up until the Nov. 3 General Election. Her rule halted implementation of new mail-in ballot envelopes, enrollment of voters with USPS and a directive to reject ballots that don’t meet the new requirements.
The Supreme Court ruled in an unsigned 6-3 order that because the states’ challenge preempted the Postal Service’s rule going into effect, rather than after the fact, it lacked proof of harm. Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
“States administering elections and the voting public that relies on them to do so deserve clarity, not caginess or confusion,” Jackson wrote.
The preliminary injunction issued Friday focused on whether states should abide by the requirements for the midterm elections. It also made Talwani’s previous ruling permanent as the lawsuit continued.