A federal judge in Massachusetts halted a section of President Donald Trump’s executive order that aimed to tighten mail-in voting rules. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from enforcing Section 3 of Executive Order 14399 for the 2026 midterm elections, or any prior federal elections.

This ruling stops the USPS from rejecting mail-in or absentee ballots as outlined in the challenged section. It also prevents the initiation of rulemaking required to implement the executive order’s regulations for the upcoming November elections. However, the federal government can still provide nonbinding guidance on ballot-mail envelopes through the USPS.

Judge Indira Talwani’s decision favors voting rights by suspending part of the executive order.

The decision on Tuesday follows a court hearing last Friday concerning the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. The Trump administration intends to appeal this ruling to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

President Trump signed the executive order in March, promoting it as part of his election integrity measures. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to compile lists of eligible voters and distribute them to states. It also asks USPS to set new standards for mail-in ballots and directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prioritize certain election investigations.

Trump has criticized mail-in voting, claiming it is prone to fraud. “Cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible,” he remarked, accusing Democrats of using it for fraudulent purposes.

Recently, the 1st Circuit rejected another attempt by the administration to enforce different provisions of Trump’s order while facing a separate legal challenge. A July 25 decision by the appeals court maintained a temporary block on aspects of Trump’s order in 23 Democratic-led states and Washington D.C. This case, led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington, centers on the argument that the executive order overreaches federal authority since the Constitution assigns primary election management responsibility to states.

In June, Judge Talwani found certain sections of the order likely exceeded presidential authority and previously blocked those sections. The appeals court maintained that injunction on July 25 as the appeal process continues.

The DOJ previously indicated it might seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court if it fails in lower courts.

The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts welcomed the ruling as a defense of voting rights, especially for those relying on mail-in voting. Their spokesperson expressed satisfaction with the decision, emphasizing their commitment to fighting for voting rights across the country.

The ruling is hailed as a protection of voting rights by organizations like the League of Women Voters.

The White House, DOJ, and USPS did not respond to requests for comments regarding the ruling. Judge Talwani directed the plaintiff organizations to post a nominal $100 bond by August 18.

Brittany Miller, a former Independent reporter and Syracuse University graduate, contributed to this report.