A Trump-appointed federal judge halted parts of President Trump’s mail-ballot plan, saying the Postal Service cannot set voting rules and warning the policy could block legal voters.
Story Snapshot
- A Washington, D.C. judge said Congress empowered the Postal Service to move mail, not regulate voting.
- A Boston judge ruled the executive branch lacks authority to set election rules and extended a nationwide block.
- Courts said the rule risked disenfranchising voters for little proven fraud benefit.
- President Trump’s order cited barcodes and federal data checks to fight fraud.
What The Judges Decided And Why It Matters
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., Carl Nichols, who was appointed by President Trump, ruled that the United States Postal Service’s final rule went beyond its legal role. The judge wrote that Congress told the Postal Service to deliver mail, not to decide who can vote by mail or to screen ballots with a federal portal. In Boston, Judge Indira Talwani again blocked related parts of the plan and said the executive branch has no inherent power to regulate elections under the Constitution.
The Boston case involved a nationwide injunction. Judge Talwani found Congress never gave the Postal Service authority over voting rules. She concluded the new rule could keep many voters from casting lawful ballots while offering little, if any, gain against fraud. These rulings fit a common court approach near elections. Judges often keep the status quo to prevent last-minute confusion that could stop eligible voters from participating.
What The Administration Argued
President Trump’s March 31 executive order said unique ballot envelope identifiers, like barcodes, would help confirm that only citizens receive and cast ballots, reducing fraud risk. The order also directed federal agencies to set uniform standards tied to ballot mail services through the Postal Service. The administration framed the plan as election integrity. It argued that using federal data could clean lists and flag ineligible mail ballots before they move through the system.
Courts did not accept that the executive order supplied the needed legal authority. Judges focused on who has the power to set election rules. States run elections. Congress can pass nationwide standards. Agencies must have clear permission from Congress to change election procedures. The courts said that permission was missing here. As a result, the policies tied to the Postal Service could not take effect before the midterms.
How This Fits The Bigger Constitutional Fight
These cases reflect a larger trend in election law. Close to Election Day, judges often block major rule changes that could confuse voters or officials. The Constitution gives states the lead role in managing elections, with Congress able to set federal standards. Executive agencies typically stay in their lane unless Congress clearly says otherwise. The courts said the Postal Service is a carrier, not an election referee, and must deliver ballots without deciding which ones count.
🚨 BREAKING: Major setback for Trump as the Supreme Court rejects his administration’s push for new mail in ballot restrictions ahead of the midterms.
The ruling was 7,2 with Justices Alito and Thomas dissenting.Do you agree with the Court’s decision?
🅰️ Yes
🅱️ No
🅲️ No sure pic.twitter.com/pD1IHcMgDT— MAGA🇺🇸 (@MA_GA_Q) September 15, 2026
Many Americans across the political spectrum see a system that serves insiders first. These rulings will feed that view from both sides. Supporters of the order will say the courts tied the government’s hands against fraud. Opponents will say agencies tried to grab power that belongs to voters and states. The shared concern is real: last-minute moves from Washington can upend trust. Clear laws from Congress, not shifting rules from agencies, are how to protect both access and integrity.
Sources:
theguardian.com, scotusblog.com
© nationalfreedompress.com 2026. All rights reserved.
