Skip to main content

Federal judge temporarily blocks Trump administration’s attempt to restrict mail-in voting

Election workers sort ballots at Contra Costa County’s election operations facility on May 27, 2026, in Martinez, California. (Benjamin Fanjoy/Getty Images)

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Thursday night blocked the Trump administration from implementing key provisions of a new rule restricting mail-in voting.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani issued a temporary order preventing the United States Postal Service from increasing its oversight of mail-in voting, following an executive order from President Donald Trump that would effectively employ the Postal Service as the primary enforcer of mail-voter eligibility.

Talwani blocked the newly finalized rule for at least 14 days. 

The same judge had previously blocked Trump’s executive order but lifted that decision on Wednesday after the Supreme Court ruled Monday she had initially acted too quickly.

With the judge’s latest order, it is likely the legal battle over the USPS rules will eventually make its way back to the Supreme Court.

Dozens of Democratic state attorneys general sued the Trump administration over the USPS directive in April, arguing it is unconstitutional since states — not the federal government — have primary authority for administering elections.

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled Monday that the states lacked standing to challenge Trump’s order at that stage since nothing had formally impacted how they will administer elections, but the high court did not weigh in on the legality of Trump’s order.

The judge’s order Thursday comes after state attorneys general brought a new challenge after USPS published a finalized rule governing steps states must take to print ballots to be carried and tracked by mail carriers.

In her order Thursday pausing the now finalized USPS plan, the judge wrote: “Plaintiff States face irreparable harm where they are required to comply with a likely unconstitutional regulation for which compliance is practically impossible as to the 2026 midterm elections, now little more than two months away,” she wrote.

The new rules finalized by the USPS last week add verification requirements to all mail-in ballots, falling short of Trump’s expectations but providing additional scrutiny.

Under the proposed change, states would be required to collect and report basic voter information, such as a voter’s name and home address, attached to a unique barcode on every mail-in ballot distributed. Currently, there is no standardized requirement or method for states to track this information, instead letting each state independently decide how its mail-in voting system operates.

State election authorities would then be required to input this information into a “federal ballot mail portal” before the ballot is accepted into the mail stream.

The USPS said it would not deliver ballots to any state not in compliance with these changes.

In a statement Thursday night, New York Attorney General Letitia James said: “This rule is a clear attempt by the federal government to interfere in elections it has no power to control. Today, a federal court halted it before this administration could wreak havoc on our elections. The USPS does not have the authority to decide who can and cannot vote by mail. My office will keep fighting to ensure this rule cannot disrupt our midterm elections.”

Trump issued an executive order in March seeking to restrict mail-in voting, directing the Department of Homeland Security to build a federal citizenship list and give it to the states; the Department of Justice to target state officials who give ballots to noncitizens; and the USPS to direct states to abide by certain mail-ballot design and tracking requirements.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

Jury begins deliberations in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial

(CNN) - The jury is now deliberating in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, after weeks of testimony wrapped up with closing arguments from both sides this morning. The courtroom was packed with reporters and members of the public. A few women in the gallery were wearing pink, presumably in support of Clancy. Before the closing arguments began, Clancy was seen wiping the corner of her eyes, and her shoulders shook as Judge William Sullivan reviewed the charges against her. The jury that will consider Lindsay Clancy’s fate is made up of nine women and three men. The panel includes a woman who was wiping her eyes during closing arguments, a man who yawned during the commonwealth’s closing, and a woman who nodded when a psychiatrist testified Clancy’s choice to not take a certain medication was reasonable “in her mind.” Many of the empaneled jurors have been diligently taking notes during the testimony. The jury foreperson is a woman with gray hair and glasses. Six alternates — three men and three women — were dismissed and so will not deliberate. After the jury exited the courtroom, Judge William F. Sullivan took a moment to commend all three attorneys for their work on the case. “Unless you’ve tried a difficult murder like this one, you may not be aware how difficult and tough it is to try a case like this,” Sullivan said. “It’s emotionally taxing. It’s intellectually, it’s physically exhausting. So I just wanted to commend all three counsel for their work and their efforts in this case in this trial. I know how challenging it’s been for them.” The jury can consider charges of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or manslaughter. First-degree murder is punishable by life in prison without the possibility of parole. Second-degree murder is punishable by life in prison with the possibility of parole. Manslaughter is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. If the jury finds Clancy not criminally responsible for the killings of her children, she could spend the rest of her life in a hospital. The court would periodically review Clancy's mental health to determine whether she could be released. In his closing argument, defense attorney Kevin Reddington said evidence shows Clancy was “a darn good mother” and the killings happened “because of the damn medicine and the lousy medical care” Clancy received. Reddington said Clancy “lived for her kids” until doctors began overprescribing her medications. The evidence presented showed Clancy had raised concerns and fears about the medications, he said, and her handwritten notes show how her mental state deteriorated. Clancy is not “criminally responsible” for the crime because of her psychological state, he said, citing the expert opinion of forensic psychiatrist Dr. Phillip Resnick. The psychiatrist examined Clancy and testified she was “frankly psychotic” and not in control of her actions during the killings. Experts for both sides acknowledged during the trial that Clancy made a “serious suicide attempt,” Reddington said. The jury was also presented exhibits that support that, he said. The defense lawyer also accused police of not conducting a thorough investigation. Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Sprague told jurors that “there’s no dispute that Lindsay Clancy was suffering from a mental illness and that she tried to kill herself,” but the issue is if she “knew the difference between right and wrong” when she killed her three kids. Killing them “was a choice,” she said. Sprague argued Clancy interacted with the public and presented “herself as a functioning adult, a functioning mom.” She pointed out Clancy chose not to tell mandated reporters about thoughts of harming her kids and how she took her daughter to the doctor the day of the killings. Sprague also said Clancy did not immediately tell her husband that she heard a voice that directed her to kill the kids. Further, the failure of the suicide attempt shows that there was no voice in her head, Sprague argued, pointing out that the pills she took were not at a lethal level and cut wounds were “superficial.” Clancy had resources, support and access to great medical care but did not follow through on a plan, Sprague said. Medical providers aren’t at fault for Clancy’s depression because she wasn’t always being honest with her doctors about her condition and what medications she took, according to Sprague. Judge William F. Sullivan showed the jury the verdict slips that the panel will use to come to a unanimous decision in Lindsay Clancy’s trial. There are three verdict slips, one for each of Clancy’s three children. Each verdict slip has several options: Not guilty, not guilty by lack of criminal responsibility, guilty of first-degree murder, guilty of second-degree murder and guilty of manslaughter. “Reaching a verdict in this case is not necessarily going to be an easy task,” he said. The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story