Main: President Donald Trump walks from Marine One to board Air Force One at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport in Cleveland, Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2026 (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein). Right inset: U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, pictured during her nomination hearing on Jan. 8, 2014 (Senate Judiciary Committee).
Update: On Monday evening, SCOTUS granted the Trump administration a stay pending appeal of Judge Talwani's injunction in the states' challenge of the president's executive order, with only Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
According to the conservative majority, the stay "does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful."
"On that score, time will tell," the per curiam opinion said. "But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it. And for the reasons discussed, that injunction is likely to irreparably harm the Government if it remains in place while the appellate process runs its course."
While Sotomayor and Kagan reasoned that the states' "challenges are justiciable now," Jackson separately wrote "[t]his is not a close call" during the "fraught period ahead of a national election."
"[T]his Court should not have gone out of its way to error correct the District Court's purported misapplication of our standing and ripeness doctrines, especially given the Government's abject failure to defend the Executive's underlying legal authority and all that is at stake in disputes involving last-minute changes to election rules," Jackson said, asserting the decision "lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges."
—
As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs a challenge to the ruling of a federal judge in Massachusetts, that same judge has demanded that the Trump administration swiftly respond to the allegation that it "flouted" an injunction.
The DOJ filed a notice on Friday for U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, telling her "after the courts were closed" that the USPS sent a "final rule" to the Office of the Federal Register, to be formally published "on August 26, 2026" and effective as of "August 21, 2026."
While the notice acknowledged Talwani's injunctions in the cases State of California v. Trump and League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, the DOJ said the final rule would "make clear that the Postal Service will not take any action to implement the rule specifically for any election to be held on or before November 3, 2026 unless and until the government obtains relief from both of those orders."
The judge, a Barack Obama appointee, has repeatedly held that Section 3 of President Donald Trump's executive order 14399 was an "unconstitutional" directive for the USPS to "refuse to transmit mail ballots for certain voters," a federal takeover threatening the "fundamental right" to vote.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision recognized that the president "direct[ed] unprecedented levels of involvement by federal officials in how states administer elections," and left that injunction in place — teeing up an ongoing Supreme Court fight between blue states and the federal government.
After Talwani recently sided with the League of Women Voters by applying her injunction nationwide, the DOJ told the Supreme Court that her "erroneous" orders needed to stop. It wouldn't be the last brief from the DOJ on the subject.
Over the weekend, the League of Women Voters filed an emergency motion to enforce the injunction, claiming that the USPS "flouted that order by sending for publication a final rule with immediate effect (the Rule or Final Rule) in violation of the injunction's prohibition on implementing Section 3[.]"
"Defendants easily could comply with the injunction and still take steps for future implementation by issuing a final rule now but with an effective date after the November 2026 election. They did not do so," said a memorandum from attorneys with the ACLU, pleading with the judge to see that time is of the essence.
In response on Sunday, Talwani set a deadline for the government to respond of "no later than 8:00 a.m." on Tuesday, when the plaintiffs themselves had asked for a "by 11:59 p.m." deadline.
The judge dismissed the DOJ's complaints about the quick turnaround to respond to the "remarkable accusation that the United States is violating a court order." Talwani said the government "creat[ed] the emergency" after courts closed and when everyone else was ready for the weekend.
"Defendants now oppose that request, asserting that their action will have no effect on the rules themselves while the injunctions are in place, while ignoring the confusion that the publication will engender. Defendants also oppose the expedited briefing scheduling, objecting to 'only two business days to respond,' despite USPS creating the emergency by issuing a rule on a Friday evening after the courts were closed," Talwani said.
The judge contemplated giving the DOJ the deadline it sought — Thursday before midnight — but noted that would only fly "with entry of a Temporary Restraining Order staying publication [Wednesday] of the Final Rule."
"If Defendants seek the August 27, 2026 filing date they shall promptly advise the court such that such a TRO may enter," Talwani said.
The weekend docket activity prompted the DOJ to complain one more time at the Supreme Court on Monday, in a supplemental brief bashing Talwani for making an "assumption" about what the "final rule" would dictate regarding mail-in ballots.
"And contrary to the district court's assumption, the published final rule does not simply mirror the proposals outlined in Section 3 of Executive Order 14,399. For example, the Postal Service will not refuse to transmit ballots from individuals who were not included on a state-submitted list, as Section 3(b)(iii) of the Order contemplated," U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer represented.
The states have maintained that the "dangers of altering election rules on the eve of an election" are widespread confusion and, ultimately, the "intolerable risk" of "disenfranchising a substantial number of voters" in the upcoming midterm elections.
Follow Law&Crime:
Comments