Main: President Donald Trump strides from Marine One to Air Force One at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport in Cleveland on August 11, 2026 (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein). Right inset: U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani is seen at her nomination hearing on January 8, 2014 (Senate Judiciary Committee).
As the U.S. Supreme Court deliberates over a pivotal challenge to a Massachusetts federal judge’s decision, that same judge addressed the Trump administration’s alleged disregard of a crucial injunction, insisting on a prompt explanation.
The Department of Justice informed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in a notice submitted last Friday, after the courts had closed, that the USPS had forwarded a “final rule” to the Office of the Federal Register for publication on “August 26, 2026,” with it becoming effective from “August 21, 2026.”
The notice did recognize Talwani’s injunctions in the State of California v. Trump and League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump cases. However, the DOJ clarified that the final rule would “affirm that the Postal Service will not enact this rule for any election before or on November 3, 2026, unless the government secures relief from both orders.”
Appointed by Barack Obama, Judge Talwani has consistently ruled that Section 3 of President Donald Trump’s executive order 14399 was an unconstitutional mandate for the USPS to “deny mail ballot transmissions to certain voters,” warning it posed a federal overreach that jeopardized the fundamental right to vote.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision recognized that the president “direct[ed] unprecedented levels of involvement by federal officials in how states administer elections,” and left that injunction in place — teeing up an ongoing Supreme Court fight between blue states and the federal government.
After Talwani recently sided with the League of Women Voters by applying her injunction nationwide, the DOJ told the Supreme Court that her “erroneous” orders needed to stop. It wouldn’t be the last brief from the DOJ on the subject.
Over the weekend, the League of Women Voters filed an emergency motion to enforce the injunction, claiming that the USPS “flouted that order by sending for publication a final rule with immediate effect (the Rule or Final Rule) in violation of the injunction’s prohibition on implementing Section 3[.]”
“Defendants easily could comply with the injunction and still take steps for future implementation by issuing a final rule now but with an effective date after the November 2026 election. They did not do so,” said a memorandum from attorneys with the ACLU, pleading with the judge to see that time is of the essence.
In response on Sunday, Talwani set a deadline for the government to respond of “no later than 8:00 a.m.” on Tuesday, when the plaintiffs themselves had asked for a “by 11:59 p.m.” deadline.
The judge dismissed the DOJ’s complaints about the quick turnaround to respond to the “remarkable accusation that the United States is violating a court order.” Talwani said the government “creat[ed] the emergency” after courts closed and when everyone else was ready for the weekend.
“Defendants now oppose that request, asserting that their action will have no effect on the rules themselves while the injunctions are in place, while ignoring the confusion that the publication will engender. Defendants also oppose the expedited briefing scheduling, objecting to ‘only two business days to respond,’ despite USPS creating the emergency by issuing a rule on a Friday evening after the courts were closed,” Talwani said.
The judge contemplated giving the DOJ the deadline it sought — Thursday before midnight — but noted that would only fly “with entry of a Temporary Restraining Order staying publication [Wednesday] of the Final Rule.”
“If Defendants seek the August 27, 2026 filing date they shall promptly advise the court such that such a TRO may enter,” Talwani said.
The weekend docket activity prompted the DOJ to complain one more time at the Supreme Court on Monday, in a supplemental brief bashing Talwani for making an “assumption” about what the “final rule” would dictate regarding mail-in ballots.
“And contrary to the district court’s assumption, the published final rule does not simply mirror the proposals outlined in Section 3 of Executive Order 14,399. For example, the Postal Service will not refuse to transmit ballots from individuals who were not included on a state-submitted list, as Section 3(b)(iii) of the Order contemplated,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer represented.
The states have maintained that the “dangers of altering election rules on the eve of an election” are widespread confusion and, ultimately, the “intolerable risk” of “disenfranchising a substantial number of voters” in the upcoming midterm elections.
The post Judge notices Trump admin ‘creating’ a mail-in ballot ’emergency’ after ‘courts were closed,’ demands immediate answers first appeared on Law & Crime.