President Donald Trump’s effort to use the U.S. Postal Service to restrict the distribution of mail-in ballots suffered a major legal defeat Tuesday, when a federal judge blocked what she called an “unprecedented directive” issued less than three months before the midterm elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted a preliminary injunction against the administration’s order, concluding that the president had stepped into election powers the Constitution does not grant him.

“The executive branch has no authority to regulate elections,” Talwani wrote.

The disputed directive would have required the Postal Service to refuse to transmit ballots to voters whose names did not appear on lists supplied by state officials.

Its implementation could have left eligible voters without requested ballots because of outdated records, administrative mistakes or differences between state and federal databases. With the Nov. 3 election approaching, opponents warned there would be little time to identify and correct those errors.

Talwani agreed that the consequences could be severe.

In her ruling, she warned that the order threatened to create “increasing chaos” while eroding public confidence in American democracy.

The decision represents a preliminary ruling rather than a final resolution of the case. But the injunction prevents the administration from enforcing the challenged restrictions while the litigation continues—delivering an immediate setback to Trump’s broader campaign against mail voting.

The judge found that the administration had offered no meaningful evidence supporting the order’s central premise.

Trump and his allies have repeatedly suggested that voting by mail enables noncitizens to cast ballots. Talwani said the court record contained no declarations, studies or other evidence establishing that connection.

“The record is devoid of any declarations or other proffered evidence to suggest that mail-in voting has resulted in voting by non-citizens,” she wrote.

Noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal. States use registration systems, identification procedures and other safeguards to determine eligibility.

The question before Talwani was not whether election security is legitimate. It was whether a president can impose new nationwide rules on state election administration through an executive order—particularly immediately before a federal election and without evidence demonstrating the alleged problem.

Her answer was emphatic.

The Constitution gives state legislatures primary authority over the times, places and manner of congressional elections while granting Congress the power to alter those rules through legislation.

It does not provide the president with independent authority to rewrite them.

The Postal Service is a federal institution, but the judge rejected the apparent argument that Trump could use control over mail operations as an indirect method of regulating access to ballots.

Her decision also highlighted the Justice Department’s unusual litigation posture.

“Throughout the multiple actions before district courts, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court of the United States, the federal government has declined to defend the constitutionality of the EO’s directives,” Talwani wrote.

That refusal left the administration seeking to implement restrictions while avoiding a direct defense of the president’s underlying constitutional authority.

Talwani also questioned whether the administration genuinely believed its stated explanation for moving forward so close to Election Day.

She noted that officials had not issued a final rule delaying implementation until after the 2026 midterms. Nor had they introduced a version limited to the 27 states not already covered by another court injunction.

“The sincerity of these arguments is belied” by those choices, the judge wrote.

The timing was central to the case.

Courts traditionally approach major election changes with extreme caution when voting is imminent. Last-minute alterations can confuse voters, overwhelm local election offices and produce inconsistent rules across different states or counties.

Trump’s order came fewer than 90 days before the midterms, leaving election officials facing the possibility of redesigning procedures while ballots were being prepared and voting plans finalized.

The potential effect extended beyond partisan politics.

Millions of Americans use mail ballots for reasons unrelated to party affiliation, including military service, disability, illness, advanced age, employment schedules and travel. Some states have long operated broad mail-voting systems with bipartisan participation.

A federal order blocking ballots based on hastily assembled state lists could therefore affect voters across the political spectrum.

The ruling arrives as Trump intensifies demands for proof-of-citizenship requirements, photo identification and tighter restrictions on absentee ballots.

In a separate interview Tuesday, the president appeared to entertain a fringe proposal from right-wing broadcaster Wayne Allyn Root that he declare an election-related national emergency and impose restrictions without congressional approval.

“Stranger things have happened,” Trump replied.

Legal experts have noted that such an emergency declaration would not grant Trump unlimited control over elections. Presidential emergency actions remain subject to constitutional limits, federal statutes and judicial review.

Talwani’s decision demonstrates that the courts are prepared to enforce those boundaries.

The administration may appeal, and higher courts could modify or overturn the injunction. The ultimate constitutionality of the order will continue to be litigated.

For the moment, however, Trump’s effort to transform the Postal Service into a gatekeeper for state-issued ballots has been stopped.

The judge found no evidence of the noncitizen mail-voting problem invoked by the administration, no persuasive defense of the order’s constitutionality and no justification for disrupting election procedures at the last minute.

Trump framed his directive as election security.

Talwani saw something else: an unauthorized presidential intervention threatening confusion just as Americans prepare to vote.