Trump administration violated court order on mail-voting rules, judge says
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
President Trump delivers remarks in the White House on Aug. 19. Photo: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images
A Massachusetts judge ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration violated a nationwide injunction by finalizing a rule that would significantly overhaul mail voting if allowed to take effect.
Why it matters: The order allows the Trump administration to publish the rule Wednesday, but the U.S. Postal Service remains barred from making the dramatic changes to mail-in ballots.
Driving the news: "Defendants cannot contend that they misunderstood the scope of the court's order, " U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in a five-page filing Tuesday afternoon.
- "Accordingly, despite the Defendants' protestations that '[t]he United States takes its obligation to comply with court orders very seriously,' the court finds that Defendants violated the preliminary injunction in this case."
Catch up quick: Tuesday's ruling came in response to a motion from the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts asking Talwani to enforce her nationwide injunction blocking the new mail-ballot rules.
- The injunction bars the administration from directing USPS to reject ballot mail that doesn't comply with the administration's new design requirements until after the 2026 midterms.
- It also bars the administration from "initiating or completing rulemaking" to implement the new criteria.
Yes, but: Talwani declined to implement any of the remedies the LWV requested.
Zoom in: The Trump administration argued in an Aug. 25 filing that publishing the new rule did not violate the nationwide injunction because the rule's language specifically says the USPS won't implement the rule while the injunction is in place. Therefore, merely publishing the rule doesn't violate Talwani's order.
- The administration also insists that the final rule needed an effective date before the midterms so states would have enough time to comply if the injunction were lifted.
Zoom out: The administration also argued that the Supreme Court's ruling Monday in a separate challenge to Trump's mail-voting executive order undercuts Talwani's preliminary injunction.
- SCOTUS paused a separate injunction Monday, finding the 23 states and D.C. could not challenge the impending policy before the rulemaking process was completed.
- The justices explicitly said the states could challenge USPS' final rule if it harms them, but found the states lacked standing because any alleged harm hadn't yet happened.
- The government argues that reasoning means Talwani should not have issued the preliminary injunction and should now vacate it.
- Talwani did not address the administration's reasoning regarding the Supreme Court's newest order, nor did she decide whether to lift the preliminary injunction.
What we're watching: The coalition of states involved in the Supreme Court case is expected to sue the administration once the final rule is published.
Go deeper: Trump's mail-in voting rules raise fears of federal overreach
