A federal court in Boston has blocked President Donald Trump‘s executive order imposing sweeping changes to mail-in voting. The ruling prevents the new regulations from taking effect ahead of the critical November midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress. In her decision, Judge Indira Talwani sided with multiple Democratic-led states that had accused the Republican president of unlawfully interfering in their electoral jurisdictions.
Read also: Trump did what he criticizes: He voted by mail, yet claims it’s fraud
The reasoning behind Trump’s executive order and the backlash
The controversial executive order was signed by Donald Trump on March 31, marking the culmination of his years-long campaign to tighten mail-in voting rules. The Republican president has consistently grounded this effort in the unsubstantiated claim that his defeat in the 2020 presidential election was the result of widespread fraud. However, the move runs up against the U.S. Constitution, which grants individual states — not the federal government — exclusive authority over the administration of federal elections.
Trump’s order directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile and send each state a list of verified American citizens eligible to vote there, drawing on citizenship, naturalization, and other federal database records.
The order also required the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to mail ballots to voters in each state who appear on the approved mail-in voting list. Recently, the USPS took steps to implement Trump’s directive, asking states to provide voter names and barcodes. Trump also called on the Department of Justice to prioritize investigations and criminal prosecutions of state and local officials who issue ballots to individuals deemed “ineligible.”
Warnings of electoral chaos and legal battles
Voting rights organizations, along with 23 states and the District of Columbia, sued the administration, arguing that the executive order is unconstitutional and that the president has no authority to interfere in the conduct of elections. The states contended that if the order were allowed to stand, they would be forced to overhaul their electoral systems at the last minute, causing widespread chaos and disenfranchising eligible voters.
Behind the ruling: Judge Talwani, an Obama appointee, issued her decision after another judge in Washington — Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee — declined to issue a temporary restraining order. Nichols had deemed the legal challenge “premature” on the grounds that the executive order had not yet been implemented, a ruling the states have already appealed.
