Judge Rules Trump Administration Violated Court Order on Mail Voting Rules

<p>A Massachusetts judge ruled on August 25, 2026, that the Trump administration violated a <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/06/25/trump-mail-in-voting-order-blocked" target="_blank">nationwide injunction</a> by finalizing a rule that would significantly change <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/08/24/trump-usps-federal-power-state-elections-mail-voting" target="_blank">mail voting</a> if implemented.</p><p>The order permits the Trump administration to publish the rule, but the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is prohibited from making changes to mail-in ballots.</p><hr /><p>U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani stated in a five-page <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.298449/gov.uscourts.mad.298449.201.0_1.pdf" target="_blank">filing</a> that "Defendants cannot contend that they misunderstood the scope of the court's order."</p><ul><li>She added, "Accordingly, despite the Defendants' protestations that '[t]he United States takes its obligation to comply with court orders very seriously,' the court finds that Defendants violated the preliminary injunction in this case."</li></ul><p>This ruling followed a <a href="https://www.lwv.org/sites/default/files/2026-08/190-Mem.-ISO-Pls.-Emergency-Mot.-to-Enforce-PI-Expedited-Briefing-Aug.-22-2026.pdf" target="_blank">motion</a> from the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts requesting enforcement of the nationwide injunction against the new mail-ballot rules.</p><ul><li>The injunction prevents the administration from directing USPS to reject ballots that do not meet the new design requirements until after the 2026 midterms.</li><li>It also prohibits the administration from "initiating or completing rulemaking" to implement the new criteria.</li></ul><p>Judge Talwani declined to implement any of the remedies requested by the League of Women Voters.</p><p>The Trump administration argued in an August 25 filing that publishing the new rule does not violate the nationwide injunction because the rule's language states that the USPS will not implement the rule while the injunction is in effect. Thus, merely publishing the rule does not breach Talwani's order.</p><ul><li>The administration contended that the final rule needed an effective date before the midterms to allow states sufficient time to comply if the injunction were lifted.</li></ul><p>The administration also referenced a recent ruling by the Supreme Court regarding a separate challenge to Trump's mail-voting executive order, suggesting it undermines Talwani's preliminary injunction.</p><ul><li>The Supreme Court paused a separate injunction, determining that the 23 states and D.C. could not challenge the impending policy before the rulemaking process was completed.</li><li>The justices indicated that the states could challenge USPS's final rule if it causes them harm, but found that the states lacked standing because any alleged harm had not yet occurred.</li><li>The government argued that this reasoning implies Talwani should not have issued the preliminary injunction and should now vacate it.</li><li>Talwani did not address the administration's arguments regarding the Supreme Court's recent order, nor did she decide whether to lift the preliminary injunction.</li></ul><p>The coalition of states involved in the Supreme Court case is expected to sue the administration once the final rule is published.</p><p><strong>For further details:</strong> <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/08/24/trump-usps-federal-power-state-elections-mail-voting" target="_blank">Trump's mail-in voting rules raise fears of federal overreach</a></p>