Second federal judge freezes Trump mail ballot order with US Supreme Court poised to weigh in (apnews.com)

submitted 14 hours ago by CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone to c/politics@lemmy.world

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A federal judge late Sunday ordered that the U.S. Postal Service not implement President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting mail balloting, adding another obstacle to the administration’s effort to rewrite election rules as the Supreme Court is poised to weigh in on the matter.

The nation’s highest court already is considering the administration’s appeal of an order by U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani in Boston prohibiting the Postal Service from enforcing its new rule on mail voting before this year’s midterm elections.

Late Sunday, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols in Washington, D.C., handed down a similar hold on the rule, which was issued Aug. 21.

“Plaintiffs have demonstrated that, absent an injunction, there is an increased risk that a significant number of otherwise appropriate absentee or mail-in ballots will ultimately not be counted in the upcoming elections,” Nichols wrote in issuing the preliminary injunction. “The public has a strong interest in ensuring that doesn’t happen.”

Nichols in May had refused to issue an injunction because he ruled the lawsuit seeking one was brought too early. That was the high court’s reasoning late last month when it lifted an earlier freeze by Talwani. But because the administration had just issued its rule to move ahead with Trump’s plan, the plaintiffs in Boston and Washington, D.C., refiled their lawsuits.

Talwani was nominated by former President Barack Obama and Nichols was nominated by Trump.

The new Postal Service regulations stem from an executive order Trump issued earlier this year. Election officials say it would be impossible to implement the changes this close to a general election.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Trebuchet@europe.pub 9 points 14 hours ago

I think we all know what will happen when the Supreme Court weighs in

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

You mean the Supreme Kangaroo Court? The one with unelected fascist tyrants whose verdict is legally and morally illegitimate? The imposters who should be expatriated to the bottom of the nearest Ocean?

[-] Trebuchet@europe.pub 4 points 7 hours ago

Is that the one which operates with zero oversight or accountability?

this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2026

64 points (98.5% liked)

politics

31107 readers

2219 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News