Federal Judge Blocks Crucial USPS Rule to Safeguard Election Integrity
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 Boston federal judge has temporarily blocked a Postal Service regulation intended to ensure the security and legitimacy of mail-in ballots, citing constitutional concerns and granting a 14-day pause as litigation proceeds.
A U.S. District Court judge in Boston has granted a temporary restraining order that halts a vital Postal Service regulation aimed at protecting the integrity of mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections. The rule, stemming from a Trump administration executive order, would have required the Postal Service to track ballots and potentially reject those not on a federal list of eligible voters—a necessary step to prevent fraud and ensure only legitimate votes are counted. Plaintiffs, including the League of Women Voters and a coalition of states, argued that the regulation exceeds presidential authority and lacks congressional approval, once again prioritizing bureaucratic hurdles over election security.
Judge Indira Talwani claimed the regulation is “most likely unlawful because the president cannot insert the federal government into elections without the express authorization of Congress.” She added that the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.” The order blocks the rule for at least 14 days, potentially jeopardizing the ability of states to secure their election systems and train staff in time.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, a frequent critic of election integrity measures, called the rule “a clear attempt by the federal government to interfere in elections it has no power to control.” The administration may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, where the rule’s importance for fair elections could be recognized.
In her ruling, Talwani noted that the government had offered no evidence of fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting, ignoring the legitimate concerns of millions of Americans about election security. She warned that the proposed changes could disenfranchise voters, but failed to acknowledge the risk of illegitimate ballots. A separate decision lifted an earlier injunction on other parts of the executive order, while a Supreme Court ruling earlier this week found Talwani had acted too quickly on that injunction but did not address the legality of the current Postal Service regulation. Importantly, a provision requiring the Department of Homeland Security to compile voter eligibility lists remains in effect, representing a crucial safeguard for the nation’s elections.