A federal judge has temporarily halted Donald Trump’s bid to tighten restrictions on mail-in voting, plunging his contested election overhaul back into legal uncertainty only days after the Supreme Court allowed it to move forward.
US District Judge Indira Talwani issued a 14-day pause on Thursday, blocking the administration from enforcing Trump’s executive order while states scramble to finalize ballots and election procedures ahead of November’s fast-approaching midterm elections.
The ruling lands at a critical moment: the first mail ballots are expected to go out to voters in just over a week. It also comes three days after the Supreme Court reversed Talwani’s earlier order that had frozen Trump’s directive.
The justices, however, did not rule on the legality of Trump’s mail-in voting restrictions. The court’s conservative majority instead found that the challenges behind the earlier injunction had been filed too soon.
With the administration now formally issuing the Postal Service rules required to carry out Trump’s order, Democratic officials and voting-rights organizations returned to court — and Talwani again moved to stop the policy from taking effect.
In her decision, Talwani said states were being asked to make sweeping changes to their election systems with virtually no time to do so.
‘Plaintiff states have neither time nor funds to design new mail ballots, seek approval of the new designs, order production of mail ballots, update their own election management systems, train election officials to use the USPS portal and upload citizen data to the portal, all before the midterms,’ Talwani wrote.
California Governor Gavin Newsom quickly celebrated Trump’s latest legal defeat, mocking his political rival on X: ‘Dear Donald, this is what happens when California sues you. FAFO.’
President Donald Trump’s attempt to restrict mail-in voting has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge
Trump has long targeted mail voting, which he falsely blames for his 2020 election loss
US District Judge Indira Talwani imposed a 14-day hold on implementation of Trump’s executive order
His taunt came as Democratic-led states and voting-rights groups argued the administration was attempting to force sweeping changes on election officials with barely any time remaining before mail ballots begin going out.
They also contend that Trump and the Postal Service are overstepping their constitutional authority, arguing that the power to set election rules rests principally with states and, in certain circumstances, Congress.
The temporary freeze will remain in place ahead of a September 3 hearing, setting up another high-stakes courtroom showdown over mail voting that could ultimately land back before the Supreme Court.
The whipsawing legal battle has major ramifications for the midterms. Nearly one-third of Americans vote by mail and election officials contend there isn´t enough time to revise their systems to comply with the new Postal Service directives.
The Postal Service says it won’t deliver mail ballots unless states provide a list of voters who should receive them and format the envelopes in a certain way.
Democrats and voting rights groups contend the demand is unconstitutional. The Constitution, they note, grants states and, in some cases, Congress the power to make election rules – not the president or Postal Service.
That reasoning led courts to block Trump´s first executive order, issued last year, that sought to change election procedures, such as requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register.
The president has long targeted mail voting, which he falsely blames for his 2020 election loss even though he himself uses it to cast his ballot.
A report by the Brookings Institution published in 2025 found that mail voting fraud occurred in only about four cases out of every 10 million mail ballots cast.
Trump issued the executive order targeting mail voting, his second one related to elections since he returned from office, in March.
Opponents quickly sued, but the administration argued the claims were premature because it hadn’t issued rules outlining how it would implement the order.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom wasted no time celebrating the latest setback for Trump, taunting the president: ‘Dear Donald, this is what happens when California sues you. FAFO.’
An election worker sorts vote-by-mail ballots at the Miami-Dade County Supervisor of Elections Office for the Florida primary election in Doral, Florida last week
The legal showdown comes just days before the first mail ballots are due to be sent out for the midterm elections. Nearly one-third of American voters cast their ballots by mail
Join the discussion
Should presidents have the power to change how states run their elections right before a major vote?
The administration won an initial case in Washington, D.C., with that reasoning, but Talwani placed injunctions against implementing the order for the November midterms in two separate cases she heard in Boston.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Monday struck down one of those holds, finding it was premature.
Talwani, nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, removed the second injunction Wednesday.
The plaintiffs then moved to refile their cases, citing the Postal Service’s publishing of its final rule, in hopes of winning a more durable victory.
It’s likely the case will again end up in front of the high court.
