A federal judge in Massachusetts has put a hard stop on one part of the Trump administration’s push to tighten mail-in voting rules before the 2026 midterms. The ruling keeps the U.S. Postal Service from refusing to handle absentee ballots under the challenged section of the order, while the legal fight keeps moving in the background.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction that blocks enforcement of Section 3 of Executive Order 14399 for the Nov. 3 midterm elections, and for any earlier federal election too. The practical effect is simple: USPS cannot use that section to turn away mail-in or absentee ballots while the case plays out.
The order does not slam the door on every piece of federal guidance. The government can still offer nonbinding advice on ballot-mail envelopes, but it cannot move ahead with the disputed rulemaking tied to the order for the November elections.
President Donald Trump signed the executive order in March as part of his election integrity push, and it went straight at a familiar flashpoint in American politics. The directive told the Department of Homeland Security to build lists of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote, asked USPS to set new standards for mail-in ballots, and instructed the Justice Department to focus on election officials who issue federal ballots to people considered ineligible.
Trump has been blunt about why he wanted the change. “Cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible. Democrats want to use it for cheating,” Trump said.
The ruling landed after Talwani held a hearing Friday on the plaintiffs’ renewed request for an injunction. The Trump administration is expected to take the case to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which means the dispute is far from settled.
This is not the first time the order has been checked by the courts. In June, Talwani had already blocked several provisions, saying they likely went beyond presidential authority, and the appeals court left that earlier injunction in place in July while the administration’s appeal continued.
The 1st Circuit also recently rejected a different bid by the administration to put other parts of the order into effect while another legal challenge moves forward. That earlier case was brought by 23 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, with California, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington leading the way.
Those states argued that elections are primarily a state responsibility and that the president cannot just hand federal agencies new power over voting rules. Their position was straightforward: the Constitution does not let the executive branch rewrite election administration by memo and order.
The administration has not ruled out pushing the issue all the way up the ladder. The Justice Department previously told the appeals court it could seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court if it did not get the result it wanted.
For voting rights groups, Tuesday’s ruling was an easy win to celebrate. The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts said the decision protects people who depend on voting by mail, calling the right to vote one of the country’s most basic constitutional guarantees.
“The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts commends the court for upholding one of our most sacred constitutional rights: the right to vote,” a representative for the organization wrote in a statement shared with Fox News Digital. “We are pleased to see this ruling and are committed to remaining in the fight to protect voting rights – not just for the Bay Staters who rely on mail voting, but for every American who utilizes this safe, secure, and trusted tool.”
The White House, DOJ and USPS did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Talwani also ordered the plaintiff organizations in the case to post a nominal $100 bond by Aug. 18, keeping the procedural wheels turning even as the core legal fight stays centered on how far the president can go in reshaping mail voting rules.
