DOJ's own courtroom promise comes back to sink Trump mail-in ballot rule

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration's mail-in ballot rule by turning the Justice Department's own courtroom promises against it.

The ruling is the latest twist in the months-long fight over the Trump administration's push to give the federal government a gatekeeping role in mail-in voting. The Supreme Court let the administration move forward on August 24, and the U.S. Postal Service finalized the mail-in ballot rule two days later, which sent states and voting-rights groups racing back to court to block it before mail ballots start going out in September.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani on Thursday granted a fourteen-day temporary restraining order freezing the mandatory core of the U.S. Postal Service's rule for any election on or before November 3, including envelope-design approvals, voter enrollment in a new federal portal and provisions letting USPS refuse to mail non-compliant ballots.

The rule flowed from President Donald Trump's March executive order directing USPS to police mail voting. Two weeks ago, DOJ lawyers had assured her that challengers would have a fast remedy once the rule was issued, Talwani noted in her ruling granting the injunction.

"When the final rule is implemented, if it affects an individual voter's ability to vote, then they certainly have standing to challenge that final rule," Talwani wrote. "And courts are able to work in an expedited basis. It would only take a very short amount of time for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction to issue."

Days ago, the DOJ said plaintiffs could "simply amend their complaint." But once they did, it reversed course and argued they were now too late because "appellate review in the ordinary course would come too late for the 2026 midterms." Talwani rejected the DOJ's pivot.

"But the question is not when appellate review will be completed," Talwani wrote. "The issue before the court is whether plaintiffs have met the traditional standards for emergency relief."

She found the states likely to win and ruled the USPS lacked authority to regulate election mail. The postal service's interest in "correcting an unsubstantiated problem through likely unconstitutional means is dwarfed by the overwhelming risk of pervasive disenfranchisement," she wrote.

A preliminary injunction hearing is set for September 3.