menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

Federal Judge Blocks USPS Election Integrity Measure Again Days After SCOTUS Stayed Her Injunction

15 0
28.08.2026

1 Trending: The ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ Is About California’s Descent Into Belligerent Impotence

2 Trending: Antifa Networks Panic After Trump Administration Sanctions Their Secret Tech Collective

3 Trending: Virginia AG Launches Office To Protect Illegals And Bureaucrats From Federal Accountability

4 Trending: How China’s Attempt To Ban A Book Backfired

Federal Judge Blocks USPS Election Integrity Measure Again Days After SCOTUS Stayed Her Injunction

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

A federal judge Thursday blocked an election integrity measure from the United States Postal Service (USPS) just days after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted that same judge’s injunction on the policy.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee and past Democrat donor in Massachusetts, issued a temporary restraining order on a USPS rule that would require states to provide basic voter data to the Postal Service, as well as change ballot envelopes to include unique barcodes associated with individual voters’ profiles, in an effort to start securing voting by mail.

Talwani had already issued an injunction on the policy before it was even finalized, and the Supreme Court barred this injunction. But Talwani is back now with a new injunction after the policy came out, claiming such publication satisfies the high court’s concerns that the judicial branch only reviews “final rules, not proposed rules,” and arguing that SCOTUS did not answer the question on the merits of the policy itself.

The Trump administration announced Friday it would be appealing Talwani’s decision.

Even Talwani’s review of what USPS is asking for shows how simple the USPS requirements are. Far from anything required in the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of........

© The Federalist