Appeals court says Trump can't impose restrictions on mail-in voting for now
The court's ruling applies to 23 states that sued over Trump's executive order.
A federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration's attempt to implement an executive order restricting mail-in voting ahead of the midterm elections.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston on Saturday kept in place an order that blocked the proposed changes to mail-in voting in the 23 states that sued over the executive order.
"Under the Constitution, state and local officials are responsible for administering federal elections," the court said in 2-1 decision.
The ruling comes one week after another federal appeals court in Washington state said a similar ruling had to be set aside for now -- leaving it uncertain if the U.S. Postal Service would attempt to make the changes in 27 states not covered by the injunction.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.
Trump has consistently made unfounded allegations of mail-in voting fraud.
A November 2025 analysis by the Brookings Institution found that "cases of fraud involving any form of mail ballots were very rare."
"We find an average total mail voting fraud percentage across the 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 general elections of only 0.000043%, or about four cases of mail voting fraud out of every 10 million mail votes," the report said.
And the conservative Heritage Foundation database shows only 387 instances of fraudulent use of absentee ballots across every election recorded since 1982.
Following a March 2026 executive order directing increased federal oversight of mail-in voting, the Postal Service in June proposed a rule to create state lists of approved voters as well as impose stricter regulations on mail-in ballots.
The majority of the First Circuit panel that voted to halt the Trump’s executive order noted that it imposes "unprecedented levels of involvement by federal officials in how states administer elections" and would "sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters" if enacted by the November midterm elections.
The First Circuit's decision applies only to the 23 states that sued over the executive order, possibly creating an uneven legal landscape between red and blue states. A federal appeals court in D.C. last week lifted an injunction that more broadly blocked the executive order, and it is unclear if the Postal Service plans to move forward with the changes in states not covered by the remaining injunction.
"I don't think anything stops them from going through with the rulemaking and enforcing the rule in the states that aren't covered by the Massachusetts injunction," Daniel Griffith, the senior director of policy at Secure Democracy USA, told ABC News.
A spokesperson for the Postal Service last week declined to comment if the agency planned to move forward with the restrictions. The Trump administration has signaled it might appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
"Because of pending litigation, we have no response to offer on any questions related to the Executive Order or the proposed rule," the spokesperson said.
Postmaster General David Steiner told Congress in June that the Postal Service, under the proposed rule, would refuse to deliver ballots in states that refuse to enforce the new changes.
"Yes or no -- if a state refuses to turn their absentee voter list over to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under this proposed rule?" Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., asked.
"Under our proposed regulation, no. We would tell the state that we need the manifest," Steiner replied.