US District Judge Indira Talwani on Thursday issued a 14-day temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking key provisions of a new US 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 prevents USPS from implementing portions of the rule while the parties litigate whether the restrictions should be subject to a longer-lasting preliminary injunction. Talwani is scheduled to hear arguments on September 3.
President Trump issued Executive Order 14399, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” in March. Among other provisions, the order directed USPS to establish requirements governing the transmission of mail-in and absentee ballots for federal elections. The order also instructed USPS to develop rules concerning ballot-mail design and to prevent the transmission of ballots to individuals who were not included on voter lists provided by states under the new system.
The litigation follows a series of earlier challenges to Trump’s executive order. On August 11, Judge Talwani had issued a preliminary injunction blocking USPS from implementing Section 3 of the executive order for the November 3rd election. The injunction prohibited USPS from refusing to transmit mail-in or absentee ballots and from completing the rule making required by the executive order.
However, on August 24th, 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 rule-making process required by the order. Because USPS subsequently issued its final rule, opponents of the executive order have returned to court with challenges directed at the completed rule.
In Thursday’s order, Judge Talwani found sufficient grounds to temporarily block implementation of the new rule while the court considers the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. Judge Talwani raised concerns about the feasibility of requiring states to alter their election procedures so close to the November election and the potential consequences for voters who rely on mail-in ballots.
This decision represents the latest development in a rapidly evolving series of lawsuits concerning President Trump’s executive order. Approximately two dozen states, along with 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 exceeds presidential authority and could interfere with states’ existing election procedures.
