A federal judge on Wednesday lifted an injunction blocking key aspects of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail voting, allowing the U.S. Postal Service to move forward with enforcement ahead of the November midterm elections.
Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts granted the Trump administration’s request to reconsider her prior ruling, citing a Supreme Court decision issued two days earlier that found legal challenges to the order were premature. The Supreme Court’s procedural ruling did not address the legality of the executive order itself.
The Postal Service is now permitted to implement a final rule published Friday that mandates states provide lists of eligible voters to verify mail ballot recipients. The rule also requires pre-approval for ballot designs and directs postal workers to deliver ballots only to individuals on the verified lists. The first batch of mail ballots is scheduled for dispatch next week.
Talwani acknowledged in her order that challengers have "substantial arguments" that could persuade the Supreme Court to reach a different outcome if given the opportunity to present them. She noted the Supreme Court’s decision did not resolve the underlying merits of the case, leaving open the possibility of future legal challenges.
The executive order, signed in March, directs multiple federal agencies to play a larger role in verifying voter eligibility and administering mail voting procedures. Under the order, the Department of Homeland Security is tasked with creating a federal citizenship list for states, while the Department of Justice is directed to target state officials who distribute ballots to noncitizens. The USPS rule requires states to submit voter rolls for verification and restricts ballot delivery to registered eligible voters.
Legal challenges from Democratic state officials and voting rights groups remain pending. A coalition of 23 states, led by California, had sued over the order, arguing it unconstitutionally interferes with states’ authority to administer elections. The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the states lacked standing to challenge the order at this stage, as no formal implementation had yet occurred. The court’s 6-3 decision did not address the order’s legality.
The League of Women Voters and other voting rights organizations filed a separate lawsuit challenging the USPS verification scheme. That case had been blocked by Talwani’s prior injunction, which she lifted Wednesday. The plaintiffs are now seeking to reinstate the block as the Postal Service finalizes its rule.
The Trump administration has framed the order as a necessary measure to secure elections, with White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis stating it represents a "major win for the security of American elections." The administration argues the measures protect against fraud and ensure only citizens vote in federal elections.
Critics, including voting rights advocates, warn the order could disenfranchise millions of voters by relying on flawed or incomplete citizenship data. Ari Berman, national voting rights correspondent for Mother Jones, argued that if implemented, the order could "wrongly label" legitimate voters as noncitizens, preventing them from casting ballots in November.
The Supreme Court’s procedural ruling leaves open the possibility that the order’s legality will be revisited in future litigation. Legal experts note that the court’s decision does not preclude challenges based on the order’s implementation or its impact on voters. The midterm elections are set to begin within weeks, with the first mail ballots scheduled for distribution next week.
The case remains fluid, with further legal developments expected as the administration moves to enforce the order and opponents seek to block its implementation.