Judge lets lawsuits against Trump’s attack on mail voting proceed

By Jacob Knutson

U.S. President Trump speaking before signing the mail voting executive order in March 2026 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
U.S. President Trump speaking before signing the mail voting executive order in March 2026 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

A federal judge in Massachusetts said Democratic state attorneys general and pro-voting organizations can continue to challenge President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive order attacking mail voting before the midterm elections.

In a ruling Thursday, District Judge Indira Talwani said Trump’s order is “both ripe and fit” for legal review because it will, if fully implemented, directly harm states’ ability to carry out elections this November.

“The [executive order] here both includes multiple specific directives as to certain actions that federal agencies must take at specified times and requires that definite ‘substantive outcomes’ be implemented that will affect the upcoming election,” Talwani, who was appointed by former President Obama, wrote.

Talwani rejected requests by the Trump administration and Republican-led states that joined the federal government as defendants to dismiss these lawsuits against Trump’s order.

Breaking with other federal judges who are hearing separate lawsuits against Trump’s order, Talwani also said the attorneys general and voting organizations have standing to bring their suits because multiple federal agencies are actively implementing Trump’s order. 

Late last month, a judge ruled it was too early for different plaintiffs to challenge the order because federal agencies weren’t yet implementing it.

Talwani noted that the United States Postal Service (USPS) recently proposed a rule that, if finalized, would force states to send the federal government information about voters who request mail or absentee ballots for federal elections. If states do not send the information, USPS would refuse to deliver ballots to voters who requested a mail ballot under its proposal.

She also highlighted the Department of Homeland Security’s ongoing effort to compile individual lists of citizens by state to determine who can vote — effectively a nationwide voter registration list.

In a hearing earlier this month, Talwani said she was concerned that these directives and others in Trump’s order would unconstitutionally disenfranchise eligible voters if implemented.

While she allowed plaintiffs to continue challenging Trump’s order in the context of the midterm elections, Talwani did, however, curtail their ability to bring claims against the order for future elections, ruling that those claims were too speculative at this point.