Boston Judge Defends Democracy, Blocks Trump’s Authoritarian Attack on Mail-In Voting
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
A federal judge in Boston courageously halted major parts of President Trump’s executive order seeking to suppress mail-in voting, upholding constitutional checks on presidential overreach.
A U.S. District Judge in Boston issued a pivotal ruling on Thursday that blocks significant sections of President Trump’s anti-democratic executive order, which directed the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to undermine mail-in voting. The order, issued in March, would have forced the Postal Service to deliver absentee ballots only to voters on lists handpicked by federal agencies, a blatant attempt to disenfranchise millions. The judge rightly found that these directives grossly exceed the President’s constitutional authority, which reserves election rules for state legislatures and Congress, not the whims of an authoritarian executive.
The injunction, a victory for democracy, applies to the upcoming general election and to earlier contests in nearly two dozen states—most led by Democratic officials—plus Washington, D.C. The states protected from this attack include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
The Postal Service, under pressure from Trump’s administration, suggested it would rely on information from state election officials to create voter lists and even threatened not to deliver ballots for states that refuse to hand over absentee voter data to the federal government, a move that would have further disenfranchised marginalized communities.
In a thorough 37-page opinion, Judge Indira Talwani wrote that "The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections." She also concluded that the Postal Service lacks the legal authority to interfere in mail-in voting, reaffirming the importance of checks and balances.
New York State Attorney General Letitia James, whose state challenged the order, celebrated the decision as a protection of voting rights, emphasizing that Trump’s executive order would have caused chaos for states, election officials, and voters, especially those most vulnerable to suppression.
The Trump administration, undeterred in its assault on voting rights, has indicated it will appeal the ruling, while a separate appeal of an earlier decision by another federal judge continues in Washington, D.C.