Judge Blocks Key Parts of Trump Order Limiting Mail-In Voting

An executive order by President Trump that seeks to enlist the U.S. Postal Service to limit voting by mail has hit a legal hurdle.

On Thursday, a Boston-based judge blocked key parts of the order that, at least so far, has not directly affected mail-in voting for this year's midterm primary elections.

The ruling applies to this fall's general election and earlier races in nearly two dozen mainly Democratic-led states, plus Washington, D.C., that filed one of the five lawsuits against Trump's order.

The legal fight, however, is likely to continue. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the new ruling by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, a nominee of former President Barack Obama, as a separate appeal of an earlier ruling by another federal judge moves forward in a similar set of lawsuits based in D.C.

Among other directives, Trump's order from March calls for the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to create lists of adult U.S. citizens or eligible voters in each state. It also calls for USPS, which is independent of a president's administration, to deliver mail-in ballots only to people on those lists.

In response, USPS has proposed using information from state election officials to create voter lists. Postmaster General David Steiner told lawmakers Wednesday that under the proposal, the Postal Service would not deliver the mail ballots of any states that refuse to turn over their absentee voter lists to the federal government.

But Talwani found that Trump's directives to USPS and DHS exceed his authority under the Constitution, which gives state legislatures and Congress the power to set the rules for federal elections.

"The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections," Talwani wrote in a 37-page opinion.

The judge also found USPS has no legal authority to control mail-in voting.

In a statement, New York State Attorney General Letitia James, whose state is one of the order's challengers, said Talwani's decision protects the right to vote from "another unlawful attack."

"This executive order would have caused chaos for states, election officials, and voters across the country. It has no place in our nation," James said.

Along with New York, the largely Democratic-led states covered by Talwani's ruling are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

For the D.C.-based cases, the judge found in late May that it was too early for an emergency ruling that would block directives that the Trump administration has yet to carry out. Democrats are appealing that judge's ruling to the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia.

Talwani's ruling was the latest legal rebuke this week to the Trump administration's efforts to shape elections and voting policy.

On Wednesday, a federal appeals panel ruled against an effort by the Department of Justice to access Michigan's sensitive voter rolls, and a federal judge permanently barred the administration from implementing key planks of an earlier executive order on voting. On Monday, another federal judge ruled that the Trump administration's efforts to aggregate data to check voter eligibility is unlawful.