A federal judge in Boston lifted a nationwide injunction Wednesday that had prevented the Trump administration from implementing new restrictions on mail-in voting, clearing a significant legal hurdle less than 70 days before the November midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted the Justice Department’s request to reconsider her earlier injunction after the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a separate case that a challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order had been brought prematurely.
“In sum, the court finds that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. California, Plaintiff Organizations are not likely to prevail as to ripeness without amending their complaint to reflect the fact that a Final Rule has now issued,” Talwani wrote in her nine-page order.
The ruling does not settle the broader fight over whether the administration’s mail-ballot restrictions are legal. Instead, it shifts the legal battle to challenges involving the final U.S. Postal Service rule, which was published Wednesday in the Federal Register.
The case before Talwani was brought by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts and other voting-rights organizations. Those groups are now seeking another injunction based on the Postal Service’s finalized rule.
The Supreme Court’s Monday decision involved a separate lawsuit filed by a coalition of Democratic-led states challenging Trump’s March executive order. The order directed the Postal Service to establish new requirements for ballots sent through the mail.
The Supreme Court concluded that the states had sued too early but did not decide whether the restrictions themselves are lawful. The court’s three liberal justices dissented and would have kept the injunction in place.
Talwani, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, indicated that the voting-rights organizations could still have a path forward once their claims are updated to address the final rule.
She wrote that the groups have “substantial arguments that might persuade the Supreme Court to reach a different result” if they “have an opportunity to present them.”
New USPS Requirements Face Fresh Challenge
The administration’s directive had previously been stopped by two separate injunctions. Talwani said Tuesday that the Postal Service violated her earlier orders by proceeding with the rule, although she declined to impose additional action at the time.
Under the final rule, mail ballots must include a unique logo and barcodes containing an embedded ZIP code, along with other specifications. State and local election officials also must provide lists of eligible voters before the Postal Service will send ballots.
Those requirements are now at the center of a new lawsuit filed Wednesday morning by Democratic-led states.
The states argue that the rule intrudes on their authority to administer elections and could prevent eligible voters from successfully casting mail ballots.
“The Rule inflicts significant, imminent, and irreparable harm on Plaintiff States by imposing new and burdensome mail voting requirements, enforced by USPS interception of non-conforming ballot mail, and doing so mere months before a nationwide election,” the lawsuit states.
Talwani is also overseeing that case, meaning the legal fight over the final rule remains in the same federal court where one of the earlier nationwide injunctions originated.
The timing could make the next round of court decisions especially consequential. The November midterms are less than 70 days away, and North Carolina is scheduled to begin sending mail ballots as early as Sept. 4.
Wednesday’s decision therefore gives the administration room to begin implementing the new requirements, but it is unlikely to be the last word. With the final Postal Service rule now in place, voting-rights organizations and Democratic-led states have shifted their challenges toward the restrictions themselves — an issue the Supreme Court did not resolve in its Monday ruling.
