In the days before millions of Americans prepare to cast their midterm ballots by mail, a federal judge has again placed herself between an executive order and the machinery of democracy, raising a question as old as the republic itself: who holds the rightful authority over how citizens vote? Judge Indira Talwani's two-week restraining order halting the Trump administration's postal restrictions on mail ballots is not merely a procedural pause — it is a live dispute over whether the Constitution's allocation of election power to states and Congress can be overridden by executive directive. Th
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Mail Ballot Order Again Before Midterms
States have neither time nor funds to comply before midterms
Mark
So a judge blocked this twice now. What changed between the first block and the second?
Mimi
The Supreme Court didn't say the order was legal or illegal. They just said the judge moved too fast the first time. So the groups suing refiled their cases, and now that the Postal Service has actually published the final rule, the judge had more concrete ground to stand on.
Luke
Right, but we should be clear: the Supreme Court didn't rule on the merits. They punted on whether the order itself is constitutional. This could still go back up there.
Mark
Why does the timing matter so much? It's just mail ballots.
Mimi
Because nearly a third of Americans vote by mail. And states would have to redesign ballots, reprogram their systems, train staff, upload data to a federal portal—all in about a week. The judge said they don't have the time or money.
Luke
That's the states' argument, and it's compelling. But we should note: the Postal Service says the rule doesn't actually change who can vote, just the technical requirements. That's their defense.
Mark
Does Trump actually vote by mail?
Mimi
Yes. He's a registered voter in Florida and votes by mail himself, even though he's spent years attacking mail voting.
Luke
That's worth noting, but it's not a legal argument. His personal voting method doesn't determine whether his order is constitutional.
Mark
What happens next?
Mimi
Hearing on September 3. Then almost certainly an appeal to the Supreme Court. The whole thing could land back there before the midterms.
Luke
And we don't know how the Court will rule this time, especially on the merits. Last time they dodged the real question.
Le Pouls
- With mail ballots set to go out within days, a federal judge issued an emergency block on Trump's postal restrictions, creating a narrow but critical window of relief for election officials already under pressure.
- States and voting rights groups warn that the new USPS portal and ballot design requirements are physically impossible to implement before November — a logistical crisis the judge acknowledged directly in her ruling.
- The constitutional fault line is sharp: two dozen state attorneys general argue the president has seized election authority the Constitution explicitly reserves for states and Congress, while the administration insists it is merely setting technical postal standards.
- Trump's long-standing opposition to mail voting collides with data showing fraud rates of roughly four cases per ten million ballots — a gap between claim and evidence that sits at the center of the political fight.
- The Supreme Court, which previously intervened only on procedural grounds without ruling on the order's legality, is now poised to take up the substance of the case at a September 3 hearing, with the midterms hanging in the balance.
In the days before millions of Americans prepare to cast their midterm ballots by mail, a federal judge has again placed herself between an executive order and the machinery of democracy, raising a question as old as the republic itself: who holds the rightful authority over how citizens vote? Judge Indira Talwani's two-week restraining order halting the Trump administration's postal restrictions on mail ballots is not merely a procedural pause — it is a live dispute over whether the Constitution's allocation of election power to states and Congress can be overridden by executive directive. The case now moves toward the Supreme Court, carrying with it the voting habits of roughly one in three Americans and the unresolved tension between federal ambition and state sovereignty.
A federal judge has blocked President Trump's mail-in voting restrictions for the second time, issuing a fourteen-day restraining order just as states prepare to send out ballots ahead of the midterm elections. Judge Indira Talwani halted a new Postal Service rule that would have required states to submit voter information through a federal portal and meet specific ballot design standards before USPS would accept outbound mail ballots — changes that nearly one-third of American voters would feel directly.
This is not the first time Talwani has stepped in. She blocked the order once before, but the Supreme Court intervened on procedural grounds, finding she had moved too quickly. The justices did not rule on whether the order was constitutional. Democrats and voting rights groups refiled their lawsuits in compliance with that decision, and Talwani blocked the order again — this time emphasizing the sheer impossibility of compliance. States, she wrote, have neither the time nor the resources to redesign ballots, update election systems, train officials, and upload data to a federal portal before November.
The deeper legal question is about power. Two dozen state attorneys general argue the Constitution reserves election authority for states and Congress, not the executive branch or the Postal Service. The administration counters that its rule addresses only technical postal requirements, not voter eligibility — a distinction critics call a distinction without a difference.
Trump has long claimed, without supporting evidence, that mail voting enabled widespread fraud in 2020 — even as he votes by mail himself in Florida. A Brookings Institution analysis found fraud in roughly four out of every ten million mail ballots cast between 2016 and 2022. The president first issued the executive order in March; legal challenges followed immediately, and the fight has escalated ever since.
A Supreme Court hearing is set for September 3, and the administration has signaled it will appeal. The fourteen-day block holds for now, but the outcome of this case will determine not only how millions vote in November, but where the constitutional boundary between federal and state election authority ultimately falls.
A federal judge has blocked President Trump's executive order on mail-in voting for a second time, issuing a two-week restraining order just days before the midterm elections are set to begin. U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani issued the order on Thursday, halting enforcement of a new Postal Service rule that would have implemented the president's restrictions on mail ballots. The timing is tight: mail ballots are expected to go out within roughly a week, and nearly one-third of American voters cast ballots by mail.
This is the second time Talwani has blocked the order. The Supreme Court had recently intervened in the case, but only on procedural grounds—the justices did not rule on whether Trump's order was actually constitutional or legal. Instead, they found that Talwani had acted too hastily the first time around. Democrats and voting rights groups then refiled their lawsuits to comply with that Supreme Court decision, and Talwani blocked the order again.
The Postal Service's new rule requires states to submit recipient information through a federal portal and meet specific envelope and barcode requirements before USPS will accept outbound mail ballots. In her ruling, Talwani emphasized the practical impossibility of compliance. "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," she wrote. Election officials across the country have made the same argument: there simply is not enough time to overhaul their systems before November.
The legal fight hinges on a constitutional question about who controls election rules. Democrats and voting rights groups—including two dozen state attorneys general—argue that the Constitution reserves election authority for the states and Congress, not the president or the Postal Service. They contend that Trump's order amounts to an unconstitutional power grab. The administration counters that the Postal Service rule does not determine voter eligibility or access to voting; it only sets technical requirements for how states submit ballots. The Postal Service maintains that states retain full control over who may vote by mail.
Trump has long opposed mail-in voting, repeatedly claiming without evidence that it cost him the 2020 election. Yet he himself votes by mail as a registered voter in Florida. A 2025 Brookings Institution analysis found mail-in voting fraud in only about four cases per 10 million ballots cast across general elections from 2016 through 2022—a rate that contradicts the widespread fraud claims Trump and his allies have made. The analysis relied partly on a database its source acknowledges is not comprehensive.
The president first issued this executive order in March, triggering immediate legal challenges. One federal judge in Washington initially declined to block it, finding the challenge premature since the administration had not yet implemented the directive. But once the Postal Service published its final rule this month, the legal landscape shifted. The Supreme Court's recent procedural decision opened the door for new lawsuits, and Talwani moved quickly to block enforcement again.
The case is almost certain to return to the Supreme Court. A hearing is scheduled for September 3, just five days away, and the administration has already signaled it will appeal. The stakes are substantial: the outcome will affect how millions of Americans cast their ballots in November and could reshape the legal boundaries between federal and state election authority. For now, the block holds for fourteen days, but the legal battle is far from over.
Citations marquantes
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
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur Fox News ↗
Politics & Governance