U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts imposed a 14-day deadline on Thursday interim injunction (TRO) blocks key provisions of a new United States Postal Service (USPS) Rule Implementing President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting ahead of the November midterm elections.
The court’s TRO blocks USPS from implementing portions of the rule while the parties argue over whether the restrictions should be subject to a longer-term injunction. The hearing of the arguments in Talwani is scheduled for September 3.
President Trump issued Executive Order 14399entitled “Ensuring Citizenship and Integrity Verification in Federal Elections,” in March. Among other things, the order directed the USPS to establish requirements for the transmission of absentee and absentee ballots for federal elections. The order also directed the USPS to develop rules for ballot design and to prevent the delivery of ballots to people who were not listed on voter lists provided by states under the new system.
The litigation follows a series of previous challenges to Trump’s executive order. To August 11thJudge Talwani had issued a preliminary injunction preventing the USPS from implementing Section 3 of the executive order for the November 3 election. The injunction prohibited the USPS from refusing to transmit absentee or absentee ballots and from carrying out the rulemaking required by the executive order.
However, on August 24, the Supreme Court intervened in a separate challenge to the executive order, finding that the earlier challenge was premature because USPS had not yet completed the rulemaking process required by the order. Since the USPS subsequently issued its final rule, opponents of the executive order have returned to court with challenges to the final rule.
On Thursday commandJudge Talwani found sufficient grounds to temporarily block implementation of the new rule while the court considers the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. Judge Talwani raised concerns about the feasibility of requiring states to change their election procedures so close to the November election and the potential impact on voters who rely on mail-in ballots.
This decision represents the latest development in a rapidly evolving series of lawsuits related to President Trump’s executive order. About two dozen states, as well as voting rights organizations and other plaintiffs, have challenged the administration’s efforts. The challengers argue that the federal government’s attempt to impose new requirements on state-administered elections goes beyond the president’s authority and could interfere with states’ existing election procedures.
