Federal judge weighs extending ban on Trump mail ballot regulation as election nears
A Boston federal judge is considering whether to maintain her prohibition on USPS implementation of a Trump executive order regulating mail ballots, with no operational plan yet presented 70 days before the election.
What happened
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani held a hearing Thursday to decide whether to extend her temporary restraining order blocking implementation of a Trump executive order that would regulate mail ballots. Talwani imposed a 14-day restraining order last week; it expires next week as states begin distributing mail ballots, with North Carolina starting Friday. The Justice Department lawyer representing USPS told the judge the administration will most likely appeal to the Supreme Court by week's end to resume implementation. Talwani previously prohibited the regulation in June, ruling the changes came too close to voting; the Supreme Court later ruled her order premature because USPS had not yet published regulations, which it subsequently did. The portal system required under the new rule was not yet active as of the hearing, and most election offices have already printed their envelopes and ballots.
Context
The regulation would require state election offices to have ballots approved by USPS and upload voter lists to a federal online portal before mailing begins. Election officials say compliance would require complete operational overhauls, and no state has opted into the system despite the administration offering it as voluntary. A whistleblower report warns the new requirement—that all ballots be physically brought to post offices with batch rejection if any barcode registers an error—could result in millions of mail ballots never being sent. Democrats and voting rights groups argue the president lacks constitutional authority to set election rules, which the Constitution grants to states and Congress. A few municipalities in Wisconsin opted to send mail ballots to voters earlier in the week; the dispute occurs at a critical juncture when mail voting infrastructure is already in motion.
What's disputed
Whether the regulatory changes are legally authorized (administration contends they are minor and legal; plaintiffs argue the president lacks constitutional authority); whether the changes are operationally feasible (administration characterizes them as optional; election officials say they require complete operational overhauls); and the practical impact on mail ballot delivery (administration downplays risk; whistleblower report warns of millions of undelivered ballots).