The Trump administration’s Justice Department sparked controversy with its recent defense of mail-in ballot restrictions, likening election mail to cremated remains and replica explosives in a federal court filing.

This unusual comparison emerged during ongoing legal battles in Boston, where the department is attempting to block two emergency motions against a new U.S. Postal Service rule governing federal ballot envelopes.

According to reports, the Postal Service had announced that these new requirements would take effect as of Thursday, intensifying concerns over mail-in voting as the election approaches.

In its court filing, the Justice Department characterized ballot mail as “sensitive, but non-dangerous,” suggesting that, like cremated remains, it necessitates special handling. The document cited existing Postal Service protocols for shipping such sensitive items.

As the filing explained, cremated human and animal remains must be sent in tracking-enabled boxes, while replica explosives must be shipped via Registered Mail, indicating the importance of careful monitoring.

While the Justice Department acknowledged that the comparison was imperfect—stating that ballot mail “does not present precisely the same operational issues”—it nonetheless insisted that the Postal Service possesses the authority to impose such regulations.

The legal debate has significant implications for mail-in voting, particularly as Trump’s executive order on March 31 prompted these new measures, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, which is involved in challenging the order.

The order also entailed instructing the Department of Homeland Security to create state citizenship lists using federal data, despite known inaccuracies, a move criticized as potentially disenfranchising voters.

“This directive threatens criminal penalties for election officials, mail carriers, and others involved in the election process,” the Brennan Center stated, highlighting the potential weight of these new regulations.

Meanwhile, the revised rules require states to upload names and addresses of intended ballot recipients to a designated online portal and submit envelope designs for review, raising concerns over privacy and control.

Election officials in multiple states are voicing their opposition, arguing that this new system grants the Postal Service an “unprecedented gatekeeping role” over the integrity of mail-in ballots.

Moreover, critics are concerned that the regulations would prevent voters from ensuring their eligibility, as they would be unable to check their status on the citizenship lists created by the DHS.

Legal experts, including Hofstra University law professor James Sample, noted that every prior challenge to these regulations had been filed before they existed, suggesting that the government’s legal defenses may remain untested.

As the situation evolves, voters are left anxious, with the first ballots scheduled to be sent out next week. The urgency is palpable as the court has set a deadline for a fuller defense of the rule by Saturday night.

State election officials have reiterated their authority over mail-in voting procedures, claiming these new rules do not override existing state law.

However, Democratic leaders and advocacy groups argue that time is running out for voters to respond to potential changes in the rules governing mail-in ballots.

The implications of this case stretch far beyond procedural tweaks, as it raises fundamental questions about voter access and the integrity of the electoral process in the face of burgeoning mail-in voting systems.

As the legal battles continue, eyes will be on the courts to determine if these ballot restrictions will stand. The outcomes may have lasting effects on voting rights just ahead of the upcoming election.