NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Obama-appointed judge in Boston whose prior mail-in ballot injunction was stayed by the Supreme Court refused Monday to lift a new block on key ballot requirements from the U.S. Postal Service and rejected the Trump administration’s interpretation of its high-court victory.
Judge Indira Talwani accused the Trump administration Monday of advancing a “cynical interpretation” of its Supreme Court victory after she refused to lift a block she imposed on new USPS mail-in ballot requirements ahead of the midterms, as states approach deadlines to begin sending ballots out.
“A final [USPS] rule has now [been] issued and contrary to defendants’ cynical interpretation, the Supreme Court has not endorsed the view that any challenge to the final rule is now too late,” Talwani wrote ahead of a hearing Thursday.
Talwani also reiterated her earlier conclusion that the challengers are likely to succeed on the merits, writing that USPS likely exceeded its authority and that key provisions of the rule were unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to law.
TRUMP SCORES SUPREME COURT WIN ON MAIL-IN VOTING RESTRICTIONS BEFORE MIDTERMS
Protesters demonstrate in front of the home of then-Postmaster General Louis DeJoy over mail-in balloting concerns. (Eric Lee/Getty Images)
Talwani said the legal posture of the case changed after the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff states couldn’t challenge the rule before its implementation. Now that USPS has implemented the rule, she said, the concrete agency action that previously had not occurred has taken place.
Her order does not stop USPS from maintaining the interstate mail-in ballot portal to communicate with state officials about new ballot design standards, as long as participation in the rule’s framework remains voluntary.
“The (my) [temporary restraining order] limits the mandatory nature of the final rule, not voluntary participation by states that choose to do so,” Talwani wrote, potentially setting up another appeal by the Trump administration.
After the Supreme Court’s intervention, former White House deputy counsel Gene Hamilton described the ruling as “interesting” and “exactly what you would expect [them] to do.”
Hamilton said the Supreme Court effectively told plaintiff states “you can’t enjoin [the feds] from thinking” because no action had taken place yet.
JACKSON RIPS INTO SUPREME COURT COLLEAGUES’ ‘SERIOUS LEGAL ERROR’ ON TRUMP MAIL-IN VOTING ORDER
US President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, March 31, 2026. Trump signed an executive order Tuesday intended to make it harder for voters to cast mail-in ballots, escalating his long-running campaign against a practice used by millions of Americans. (Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“It reminds the American people … just because something might happen in the future [it] doesn’t mean that you’re actually harmed today, and that’s really the crux of what the court did.”
Hamilton quipped that if the states challenging the order were proven right — and the possibility of future harm were enough to obtain a legal stay — his organization would “have a field day across the country” trying to head off new policies he and his clients oppose.
In that regard, he added that the district judge ultimately overruled by the Supreme Court made an “egregious” misread of Article III powers and essentially said states can dictate which cases the attorney general and DOJ try to prosecute.
He emphasized that the legal landscape could change quickly once Trump’s actions get underway, but said states challenging executive action must show a concrete or sufficiently imminent injury rather than rely on predictions about what agencies might eventually do.
DHS APPROVES PLAN TO VERIFY VOTER CITIZENSHIP, MONITOR MAIL BALLOTS AS TRUMP PUSH INTENSIFIES
California Attorney General Rob Bonta speaks after a hearing about Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s seizure and recount of more than half a million 2025 election ballots on Monday, Aug. 24, 2026, at California Supreme Court in San Francisco. (Alicia Ramirez/The Riverside Record, Pool)
Besides USPS, Trump’s order directs DHS to compile and provide states with lists of adult U.S. citizens, while DOJ was told to prioritize investigations and potential prosecutions involving ballots issued to ineligible voters.
“Let’s see what the departments and agencies actually do. Well, let’s see what they say they’re going to do,” Hamilton told Fox News Digital, as new concrete federal rules will come next.
USPS WOULDN’T DELIVER BALLOTS IN STATES THAT REFUSE TO FORK OVER MAIL-IN VOTER INFO UNDER PROPOSED RULE
The clock is ticking to implement the plan and respond to further legal challenges as states distribute mail ballots progressively earlier than in past decades.
USPS first proposed its ballot-mail rule in June and has since finalized it, requiring standardized ballot envelopes and unique tracking barcodes while directing states to use a federal portal to identify voters receiving mailed federal ballots. States that fail to comply could see outbound federal ballot mail refused or returned.
But the agency signaled at the time that it won’t implement the rule for the midterms unless the litigation is resolved. A separate injunction obtained in litigation by the League of Women Voters currently blocks USPS from implementing the rule.
“Why wouldn’t you take steps like getting a list of eligible voters, like asking the USPS to use standard mail security measures that they use for other things,” Hamilton commented.
Asked which provisions of Trump’s order the administration plans to implement following the ruling, when those actions would begin and how states would be directed to comply, the White House did not provide specifics.
“These are commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders. This administration will continue to lawfully enact the agenda President Trump was elected on — which includes the safety and security of our elections,” White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis told Fox News Digital.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta — who led the plaintiffs from 23 states along with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro — criticized the Supreme Court for letting Trump “try to make it harder for Americans to vote.”
Shapiro was listed separately because Pennsylvania Republican Attorney General David Sunday had not signed the state onto the suit.
“Not so fast,” the potential 2028 presidential candidate said in a statement. “Donald Trump does not run elections here in Pennsylvania — or in any state.”
“[The] SCOTUS decision does not deal with the substance of Trump’s unconstitutional Executive Order and does not mean his illegal attempt to restrict mail-in voting will go forward.”
On Wednesday, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes responded to the ruling, declaring, “Over my dead body is that rule going to go into effect. We are going to fight this tooth and nail in the courts.”
Bonta pledged to continue the fight and noted that Obama-appointed Judge Indira Talwani of Boston had originally sided with the plaintiffs.
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
Postmaster General David Steiner testifies before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee during a June 24 hearing on reforming the U.S. Postal Service’s business model in Washington, D.C. (Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Hamilton predicted such disputes would produce another round of litigation as agencies make their next moves.
“We have to get through the arbitrage of lower court proceedings, and I’m sure there’s going to be a lot more fighting to come,” he said.
Shapiro echoed the plaintiffs’ opposition to the ruling, tweeting:
“We’ll see the Trump Administration in court.”
Fox News Digital’s Hannah Brennan and Melissa Chrise contributed to this report.
