Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Amazon Prime Day Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNewsWorldAppeals court blocks Trump's mail voting overhaul ahead of midterm electionsWhile the Boston judge’s injunction doesn’t apply nationwide, it’s considered a significant impediment to the administration’s ability to carry out the president's executive order for the November voteAuthor of the article: You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.A U.S. appeals court blocked Donald Trump's mail voting overhaul. dealing a setback to his executive order ahead of this year's midterm elections. Photo by Saul LOEB / POOL / AFP via Getty ImagesA U.S. appeals court rejected the Justice Department’s request to let federal officials fully move ahead with Donald Trump’s overhaul of mail voting ahead of the November midterm elections, leaving in place a Boston judge’s order that declared the president’s policies unlawful.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorA three-judge appellate panel said it would not pause a lower court ruling that barred federal agencies from immediately enforcing Trump’s executive order in almost two dozen states and the District of Columbia where Democratic officials sued.Several other legal challenges are pending against the president’s directives, including a lawsuit brought by the Democratic National Committee and party leaders in Congress.Get a dash of perspective along with the trending news of the day in a very readable format.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againThe Justice Department signalled in earlier court filings that it would consider taking the fight to the U.S. Supreme Court. While the Boston judge’s injunction doesn’t apply nationwide, it’s considered a significant impediment to the administration’s ability to carry out Trump’s executive order for the November vote.The Justice Department said in a statement Sunday it’s “reviewing all options” and “remains confident that President Trump’s order to secure federal elections will ultimately be upheld.”Advocates across the political spectrum are vying to swing election-related legal fights in their favour before November, when Republicans will defend tight margins of control in both chambers of Congress.The majority of the panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit found that at this early stage of the case, the states that sued presented enough evidence that they were being harmed by the president’s actions and had standing to press their claims.“All told, between the compressed timelines and anticipated changes to states’ election processes, the summary judgment record indicates that the EO has already ‘produced an incredible strain’ on state election officials and their teams,” Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman wrote in a joint opinion, referring to Trump’s executive order. Both judges were appointed by former President Joe Biden.Judge Joshua Dunlap, an appointee during Trump’s second term, partially dissented, writing that he would have allowed a section of the challenged order that directed the Department of Homeland Security to prepare a list of potentially eligible U.S. citizen voters as guidance for states, which run elections, to go ahead.The California attorney general’s office, which led the coalition of states that sued, didn’t respond to a request for comment. A dozen Republican state attorneys general also intervened in the case in support of the president’s order.The government argued that the Homeland Security list was intended to only serve as a resource to local jurisdictions. State officials who sued pointed to language in the executive order that appeared to threaten them with criminal prosecution if they didn’t use the federal lists to determine who is eligible to vote.Postal ServiceThe president also ordered the U.S. Postal Service to revamp the design of election mail and to adopt rules that would require states to coordinate with the agency on its lists of residents poised to receive mail-in ballots. The states that sued argued this would unlawfully turn the postal service into an “elections regulator” and empower the agency to refuse to deliver ballots.The administration and the president’s supporters are promoting the measures as safeguards against fraud. Democrats, voting rights organizations and others denounced the plan as an unlawful move to interfere with state management of congressional elections and to sow chaos and confusion beforehand to benefit Republicans.In late June, the judge in Boston sided with the Democratic state officials who sued, declaring several sections of Trump’s order “unconstitutionally void” and blocking agencies from executing it in those jurisdictions ahead of the Nov. 3 election.In the DNC’s case in Washington, a federal district judge entered an order in May refusing to block the executive action ahead of the November contest, finding it was premature because agencies hadn’t taken steps to implement it. Shortly after that decision, the Postal Service began the formal rulemaking process.Democratic officials involved in that case have asked the DC Circuit to step in and block Trump’s directives before the Nov. 3 midterms.The case is California v. Trump, 26-1774, U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit.Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here. Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.