Federal judge blocks Trump's mail-voting executive order on constitutional separation-of-powers grounds
On June 25, 2026, Judge Indira Talwani of the District of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction blocking key parts of President Trump's March 31, 2026 executive order that sought to create a federal list of mail-in ballot voters and give USPS discretion to refuse delivery. The ruling rests solely on the constitutional separation of powers — holding that the president lacks authority over election administration — and does not invoke the Voting Rights Act. It is distinct from an earlier, broader permanent injunction issued by Judge Denise Casper on June 24, 2026, which blocked a separate March 2025 anti-voting executive order on similar grounds.
A second federal court has told the White House it cannot run elections. On June 25, Judge Indira Talwani blocked the president's March 31 order that would have required the U.S. Postal Service to create lists of voters eligible for mail ballots and refuse delivery to anyone not on those lists. The ruling is squarely a separation-of-powers decision: the Constitution gives states and Congress — not the president — authority over election rules. The judge found the order exceeded executive power, exactly as courts have repeatedly held against similar administration overreach.
The ruling is not a Voting Rights Act decision, contrary to initial confusion. Nor is it the same injunction issued the day before by Judge Denise Casper; Casper's June 24 ruling permanently blocked Trump's earlier March 2025 anti-voting order (which targeted proof-of-citizenship requirements and voter roll purges). Talwani's Friday ruling addresses the separate March 31, 2026 mail-voting order. Together, the two rulings deliver a one-two punch to the administration's broad assault on voting access, but the fight continues: the administration may appeal, and the USPS rule changes and DOJ audit directives challenged by the underlying lawsuits remain active unless separately enjoined.
The practical effect is that states — not a federal list — will continue to determine mail ballot eligibility for the 2026 midterms. But the executive order's other provisions, such as a shortened 60-day ballot request window and a directive for DOJ to sue states that count ballots received after Election Day, are not covered by this injunction. Voters who rely on mail ballots should continue to plan early, and advocates must watch for the administration's next move in the courts and in Congress.
The humanitarian alternative
Congress should pass the Vote By Mail Act, which would establish uniform national standards for mail-in ballot access, ensuring every registered voter has the option to vote by mail without arbitrary federal restrictions. The act should also require the U.S. Postal Service to prioritize ballot delivery and set clear deadlines that states and voters can rely on. At the state level, states should codify no-excuse mail voting, expand drop-box locations, and implement automatic mail ballot requests for all registered voters — measures that would increase turnout, reduce lines, and make elections more accessible without compromising security.
Falsifiable predictions
What this entry claims will happen, and what data would prove it wrong. The Reckoner revisits these against current reality.
- The Trump administration will appeal this ruling to the First Circuit within 30 days.
- The administration will attempt to achieve the same goal — restricting mail ballot eligibility — through a revised executive order or DOJ guidance that avoids the constitutional defects.
Grounded in
Original source — excerpted
news Judge blocks part of Trump's proposed mail-in voting restrictions"The ruling bars the creation of a list of voters eligible for mail-in ballots. President Donald Trump attends a bilateral meeting with Indian Prime Minister Na..."