Key facts
- A US appeals court rejected Donald Trump’s bid to impose restrictions on mail-in voting.
- The First US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put on hold a lower court’s injunction.
- The injunction prevented the US Postal Service from tightening rules around postal voting.
- The US Supreme Court has also blocked Trump’s efforts to introduce new requirements for mail-in voting.
- US District Judge Indira Talwani previously ruled Trump’s directives were likely unconstitutional.
- Talwani criticized the timing of the executive order, stating it threatened disenfranchisement.
A US appeals court has rejected Donald Trump’s bid to impose sweeping restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of the November midterm elections, dealing a blow to his efforts to tighten rules around postal voting. The First US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put on hold an injunction issued by a lower court judge last week, which prevented the US Postal Service from implementing new regulations. This decision follows a similar move by the US Supreme Court, which also blocked Trump’s attempts to introduce new requirements for mail-in ballots. US District Judge Indira Talwani had previously ruled that Trump’s directives, which would have granted the federal government power over the handling of mail-in ballots, were likely unconstitutional. She criticized the timing of the executive order, stating that with only two months until election day, it “threatens disenfranchisement of millions of United States citizens who seek to vote by mail.” The Trump administration, however, countered that the Postal Service’s rule imposed only modest requirements and did not seize control of states’ rights to administer elections. US Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the rule would ensure states remain responsible for determining voter eligibility and did not dictate ballot content or deadlines. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson set a Wednesday deadline for responses to the administration’s request, marking the third time the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene on this matter.