A federal judge in Boston has again ruled against President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting mail voting, handing the administration another setback as it pushes for Supreme Court intervention before the November 3, 2026 midterm elections. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s decision keeps in place a barrier to federal efforts that challengers say would reshape election administration by creating a federal voter list and drawing the U.S. Postal Service into election-related functions traditionally handled by states.

The ruling comes in consolidated litigation brought by voting-rights groups and Democratic state attorneys general, including League of Women Voters of Massachusetts et al v. Trump et al and State of California et al v. Trump et al in the District of Massachusetts.

A federal judge in Boston has again blocked key provisions of President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at expanding the federal government’s role in election administration, marking another significant judicial check on the administration’s effort to reshape voting rules ahead of the 2026 midterms.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, ruled against provisions that would have helped create a federal voter list and more directly inserted federal authority into functions traditionally handled by states.

A federal judge has refused to immediately block President Trump’s executive order imposing tighter rules on mail-in voting, allowing the measure to remain in effect while the underlying lawsuit proceeds. The ruling is procedural rather than final: the court did not resolve the merits of the Democratic plaintiffs’ constitutional and election-law claims, but it did conclude that emergency relief was not warranted at this stage.

That distinction matters.

A D.C. Circuit panel appeared deeply skeptical of the Justice Department’s effort to revive Trump-era executive orders targeting WilmerHale, Perkins Coie, Jenner Block, and Susman Godfrey—an unusually direct clash between presidential power and the independence of major law firms.

At issue are executive actions that, according to the firms, penalize them for past client representations, internal employment and policy choices, and perceived political affiliations.