In a significant legal development, a federal appeals court denied the Trump administration’s request to lift a lower court’s order blocking new rules for mail ballots ahead of the midterm elections. This decision continues a legal battle that has previously reached the Supreme Court.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals, through a unanimous three-judge panel, ruled against the administration. The panel cited potential chaos and voter disenfranchisement as reasons for maintaining the block on the new rules proposed by the U.S. Postal Service. The appellate judges pointed out that the administration failed to show that implementing the new rules would not lead to these negative outcomes.
The decision highlights the court’s agreement with earlier findings that there is “no record evidence of past fraud or a likelihood of impending fraud related to the November 3 election.” The judges firmly rejected President Trump’s longstanding assertions of widespread mail voting fraud.
The judges emphasized that the new rule would likely “result in the disenfranchisement of millions of voters across the country” with little to no gain in preventing voter fraud. The panel included Judges Gustavo A. Gelpí, Julie Rikelman, and Seth Aframe, appointees of President Joe Biden. They noted the appellants had not demonstrated entitlement to a stay, criticizing the lack of a strong argument against the district court’s conclusion that the new rule is likely unlawful.
The decision also noted that the rule appears to regulate the manner of elections, which the Constitution assigns to the States and Congress, not an executive agency.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani had already issued a preliminary injunction, stopping the Postal Service from enforcing the rule. Her ruling highlighted potential unconstitutional elements and projected significant challenges for states implementing these requirements close to the elections.
The contested rule requires mail ballots to have unique barcodes and mandates an online portal for submission of voter information. It also includes a provision for postal workers to verify ballots, with non-compliant ballots returned to election offices.
The Trump administration has made multiple appeals for intervention by the Supreme Court, arguing that the rule represents a legal exercise of the Postal Service’s authority. Solicitor General D. John Sauer labeled the district court’s injunction as “baseless,” reinforcing the administration’s stance on the legal authority to set such requirements.
As the legal proceedings continue, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the administration’s request for a stay.