The Trump administration has suffered a significant legal defeat in its effort to impose restrictions on mail-in voting after a federal judge in Massachusetts blocked an executive order that would have compelled the U.S. Postal Service to reject certain ballots.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday against the executive order, which sought to bar the USPS from transmitting ballots to voters whose names did not appear on lists submitted by states. Talwani ruled the order unconstitutional, citing its issuance less than 90 days before the midterm elections, and characterized it as an "unprecedented directive." The case touches on a longstanding constitutional framework: under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, state legislatures hold primary authority over the times, places, and manner of congressional elections, with Congress — not the executive branch — empowered to alter those regulations.

The judge noted that the administration never mounted a substantive defense of the order's constitutionality across multiple court proceedings.

"Throughout the multiple actions before district courts, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court of the United States, the federal government has declined to defend the constitutionality of the EO's directives," Talwani wrote in her ruling, which is available via DocumentCloud.

Talwani rejected the notion that the executive branch possesses any authority over election administration, writing plainly: "The executive branch has no authority to regulate elections."

She further found no factual basis for the order's underlying premise, noting that the Department of Justice failed to present any evidence linking mail-in voting to fraudulent activity. The absence of evidence aligns with findings from federal courts and bipartisan election officials in prior election cycles, including the 2020 election in which tens of millions of Americans cast ballots by mail.

"The record is devoid of any declarations or other proffered evidence to suggest that mail-in voting has resulted in voting by non-citizens," she wrote.

Talwani also questioned the sincerity of the administration's stated justification, pointing out that officials declined to issue a comparable rule for later elections or for the 27 states not already covered by a separate injunction.

"The sincerity of these arguments is belied by the Defendants' choice to neither issue a Final Rule that applies only after the November 3, 2026, election, nor to issue a Final Rule that applies in the twenty-seven States that are not subject to the pending injunction," Talwani wrote.

She warned of the consequences for voters affected by the resulting uncertainty, concluding that Trump's executive order was "threatening both increasing chaos and an erosion of trust in our democracy." The ruling leaves in place existing state mail-in voting procedures as the midterm elections approach, though the administration retains the option to appeal.