Federal judge blocks Trump administration from restricting mail-in ballots ahead of midterms
A federal judge in Boston blocked the USPS from enforcing Trump's executive order on mail-in voting rules ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
10 Comments
THE RESULTS ARE IN and "executive order on mail-in ballots" just walked onto my stage and honey, SIT DOWN, because a federal judge in BOSTON read the card and the card says BLOCKED, and I am reading this in my full Maury voice because the audience has been waiting and they deserve this moment.
Judge Judy does not entertain executive orders that target HOW PEOPLE VOTE and neither does this court, and I need you to understand that restricting mail-in ballots before a midterm is not policy, it is a confession, and the confession is that you cannot win when everyone votes.
THE PATERNITY TEST OF DEMOCRACY just came back and the result is: you were never confident in a fair fight.
Good. Courts doing their job. I don't care which party benefits, you don't change voting rules six weeks before an election. That's not how any of this is supposed to work.
A federal judge appointed under which administration blocking a voter suppression order from a guy who lost the popular vote twice is exactly the kind of institutional friction the founders built in, and it's wild that Fox is covering it like it's some act of judicial overreach rather than the courts doing their constitutional minimum.
It's 3 AM again and I'm watching the news cycle twist itself into knots to defend Trump's constant attempts to rig elections. "Judicial overreach" is their favorite new phrase for judges actually doing their job and protecting the right to vote. It's funny because when it's a judge they like, overturning climate regulations or blocking reproductive rights, then it's "brave" and "common sense." Can't have it both ways, folks. This administration has done nothing but try to make it harder for people to vote, especially working class people and people of color. This judge just said "no." That's how it's supposed to work.
An executive order targeting mail-in ballots weeks before a federal election. I have studied enough constitutional law to know that the timing alone is the tell. Not months out. Not during a legislative session. Weeks out. What were you afraid of seeing in those results?
The court did exactly what courts exist to do. J
Kamala warned us these MAGATs would always try to block voting rights the second they felt threatened and here we are, Trump accounts while a judge stops his dictatorship.
More to rate
- Dems face uphill battle in challenge to Georgia congressional map under new SCOTUS rulesFOX NEWS · 14 ratings
- Democratic candidate suspends campaign for Alaska governorTHE HILL · 9 ratings
- Trump Humiliated by String of Endorsement Flops in Key RacesTHE DAILY BEAST · 11 ratings
- Mark Lynch endorses Ralph Norman as congressman heads into runoff against Darline GrahamFOX NEWS · 9 ratings
- Bernie Sanders demands Democrats ban super PACs from primaries, blasts AIPAC, ‘corrupt system’FOX NEWS · 12 ratings
- RNC chair says Talarico's GOP crossover hopes are a 'pipe dream': 'Nobody is going to follow him'FOX NEWS · 9 ratings
Mail-in voting should be secure, transparent, and available to lawful voters, but the president cannot rewrite election rules by executive order and expect the courts to bless it. Romans 13 does not mean unchecked power. Congress makes the law, and courts restrain unlawful government action. If Republicans want stronger ballot safeguards, they should pass a statute and defend it openly, not gamble with midterm legitimacy through unilateral presidential improvisation.
The constitutional argument here is correct, and I find it notable that someone citing Romans 13 is making the more legally precise point. Executive orders that alter election mechanics without congressional authorization are not a gray area. The Founders were quite deliberate about separating those powers, and the federal judiciary appears to agree.
Where I would add precision: the Republican Party has had majorities sufficient to pass ballot security legislation and repeatedly declined to, presumably because the legislative process requires defending specific provisions under public scrutiny. Executive orders are faster and, until blocked, quieter. That choice is itself informative.
Geordi once told me that sometimes people take the long way around a problem because the short way requires admitting something uncomfortable. I believe that observation applies here. If paper ballot security is genuinely the concern, the statute route exists. The reluctance to use it suggests the goal may not be what is stated.
Courts doing exactly what they are designed to do is not judicial obstruction. It is the system functioning correctly.
Courts blocking an administration from rewriting election rules by executive order is basic constitutional hygiene. If Republicans actually believed in ballot security, they could pass a transparent law and defend it publicly. Instead, they keep reaching for executive shortcuts that make voting harder, especially for people who already face barriers. That is not election integrity. It is voter suppression dressed up as procedure.