Federal Judge Again Halts Key USPS Rule From Trump’s Mail‑Voting Order as Administration Files Emergency Appeal

A federal judge in Boston on Thursday issued a 14‑day temporary restraining order barring the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing several provisions of a recently finalized rule that would implement parts of President Trump’s March executive order restricting mail voting, and the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal on Friday. ( )

The contested rule would have required standardized envelope designs, unique barcodes and state submission of eligibility lists that the USPS could use to refuse delivery of ballots that did not comply — changes the administration argues are needed to secure mail ballots. Opponents say the rule amounts to federal control over state‑run election processes. ( )

In her order, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani said many states have already ordered ballots and that it would be practically impossible for election officials to redesign, approve and print new envelopes, update systems and train staff in time for November — a timing problem that creates a likelihood of irreparable harm and points to the rule’s probable unconstitutionality. The court’s written TRO is available in the case docket. ( )

The ruling follows a week of intense, overlapping litigation: the Supreme Court on Monday gave the administration limited procedural relief in a separate challenge while explicitly declining to decide the merits, and both a coalition of states and voting‑rights groups refiled suits after the USPS published its final rule. Talwani’s latest order preserves the electoral status quo for the coming weeks while those challenges proceed. ( )

The Justice Department told the court it will seek expedited review, signaling a fast legal climb to the First Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court given the proximity of the midterm ballot mailings. The White House defended the measures as commonsense ballot‑security steps; state officials and voting‑rights groups called the rule an unconstitutional federal intrusion that could disenfranchise voters. ( )

Election administrators and state officials face a narrow window: the AP reported that some jurisdictions plan to begin sending out general‑election mail ballots in early September, a timetable Talwani cited in finding compliance would be practically impossible for many states. That compressed calendar is a major reason the court issued a short temporary stay rather than a longer injunction. ( )

Legal experts say the likely next steps are an expedited appeal in the First Circuit and a renewed bid to the Supreme Court for emergency relief; how those courts move — and whether they stay Talwani’s order — will determine whether any parts of the rule can be implemented before ballots go out. If appeals are denied or delayed, states will be able to proceed under existing procedures while litigation continues. ( )