Judge Blocks Key Parts of Trump’s Mail-in Voting Order

A federal judge in Boston has blocked key provisions of President Trump’s executive order aimed at restricting mail-in voting, delivering a significant legal setback to the administration’s efforts to reshape election administration ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, ruled on June 25 that Trump’s directives to the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security exceed the president’s constitutional authority. Her ruling applies to 22 mainly Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C., which had sued to block the order.

“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Talwani wrote in her 37-page opinion, as reported by NPR.

The Executive Order and Its Scope

Trump’s executive order, issued in March 2026, directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile federal voter lists and required the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to voters on those lists. It also instructed the Department of Justice to prioritize investigations and prosecutions of state and local election officials who issue ballots to individuals deemed “not eligible” to vote.

In response, USPS proposed using state election data to create voter databases. Postmaster General David Steiner told lawmakers that under the proposed regulation, USPS would not deliver ballots from states that refused to turn over their absentee voter lists, according to AP News.

The judge found that neither the president nor the Postal Service has the legal authority to regulate mail-in voting. She also determined that any list DHS compiled would be inherently incomplete due to privacy restrictions governing the sharing of sensitive personal data.

A Week of Legal Setbacks

Talwani’s ruling was the latest in a series of judicial rebukes to the Trump administration’s voting policies. Earlier in the week:

• On June 22, a federal judge ruled that the administration’s SAVE voter data aggregation system was unlawful.
• On June 24, a federal appeals panel rejected a Department of Justice effort to access Michigan’s voter rolls.
• On June 24, another federal judge permanently barred key planks of an earlier Trump executive order on voting.

As CNBC reported, the ruling prevents the order from taking effect ahead of the November 3 elections, which will determine control of Congress.

Reactions from Both Sides

New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose state was among the plaintiffs, praised the decision. “This executive order would have caused chaos for states, election officials, and voters across the country. It has no place in our nation,” James said, as quoted by NPR.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes echoed the sentiment, telling AP that “millions of independents, Republicans and Democrats across Arizona have voted by mail for decades… States run their elections, not the President.”

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows accused Trump of attempting to “abuse power in previously unthinkable ways,” according to AP.

The White House pushed back. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the order “lawfully protects our elections, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail,” as reported by AP.

The National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association also weighed in, warning that forcing postal workers into this role “risks politicizing one of the nation’s most trusted public institutions,” per AP.

Broader Legal and Political Context

The ruling reinforces the constitutional principle that states — not the president — have primary authority over election administration. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution grants state legislatures and Congress the power to set rules for federal elections, with no enumerated role for the executive branch.

This case is part of a wider confrontation between the Trump administration and Democratic-led states over election administration. A separate lawsuit in Washington, D.C., took a different path: Trump-appointed Judge Carl Nichols declined to issue a preliminary injunction in late May, finding the challenge premature since the order had yet to be implemented. Democrats are appealing that ruling.

The conflicting rulings may ultimately need to be resolved by the Supreme Court, where the 6-3 conservative majority could play a decisive role.

Implications for the 2026 Midterms

The ruling preserves the mail-in voting status quo in key battleground states including Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, and North Carolina — all states that will be critical in determining control of Congress in the November midterms.

Trump has a long history of opposing mail-in voting, having groundlessly claimed since his 2020 election loss that the practice is rife with fraud. Multiple audits, including Republican-led ones, found no evidence of widespread fraud. Notably, Trump himself voted by mail in Florida’s March 2026 primary.

What’s Next

The Trump administration is expected to appeal Talwani’s ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The case could reach the Supreme Court, potentially before the November election. Legal experts will be watching closely to see how the conflicting Boston and D.C. rulings are reconciled.

For now, voters in two dozen states and the District of Columbia can expect mail-in voting to proceed under existing state rules, without the federal restrictions the executive order sought to impose.