A judge in Boston concluded in June that Donald Trump's executive order on mail-in ballots oversteps the president's authority under the Constitution and that the USPS has no legal authority to control mail and voting.
Posted by Up First from NPR, Checked
- Sources
- 3 support2 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 80%
Up First from NPRAug 25, 2026
Judge Indira Talwani of the federal court in Boston ruled on June 25, 2026 that key parts of Trump's March mail-voting executive order were unconstitutional, violating separation of powers, and that its directives to USPS and DHS exceeded his authority.
The guest relays this claim without endorsing it. It counts as passed on, not against the post.
What was said
… And what did the Supreme Court actually say? What we have is an unsigned ruling from this conservative led court on procedural questions. The court's three liberal justices dissented, but the ruling basically says the judge in Boston weighed in too early back in June by concluding that Trump's order oversteps the president's authority under the Constitution and that USPS has no legal authority to control mail and voting. The Trump administration argued it had not fully carried out the order, so it shouldn't be blocked, and the Supreme Court agreed. And what are you hearing from the order's challengers? …
Up First from NPR · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. AP (via Boston.com) reports Talwani ruled the order's provisions on federal voter lists and USPS mail-ballot delivery were 'legally void' because they 'unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.'[3]
Supports. NBC News reports a federal judge in Boston on June 25, 2026 blocked key parts of the order, declaring the plans to intervene in state-run elections unconstitutional.[2]
Supports. NPR/WUNC reports Talwani found Trump's directives to USPS and DHS exceed his authority, supporting the claim that USPS lacks legal authority over the mail-ballot directives.[4]
Context. Reuters' June 18 report covered only a procedural ruling allowing lawsuits to proceed, not the merits conclusion.[1]
Context. The Supreme Court later paused the lower-court ruling in August 2026 without weighing in on the order's legality, which does not make the June conclusion false as of when it was made.[5]
Sources
5 sources: 1 fact-checker, 1 tier 2, 3 not rated
- 1US judge allows challenges to Trump's mail-in voting order ahead of November electionsreuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: context
- 2Judge blocks Trump's executive order on mail votingnbcnews.com · tier 2 · cited for: supports
- 3Federal judge in Boston halts Trump’s election executive ...boston.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 4Trump appeals a ruling that blocks parts of his order to restrict voting by mailwunc.org · not rated · cited for: supports
- 5Supreme Court gives Trump an interim win on his mail ...laist.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- A judge in Boston issued two rulings blocking the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out Trump's order to restrict voting by mail.True
- The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration's executive order regarding mail-in voting regulations.Mixed
- The Supreme Court blocked an executive order from the Trump administration that sought to change mail voting processes and give the U.S. Postal Service new abilities to decide who to deliver mail ballots to.True
- Donald Trump issued an executive order to deliver mail ballots only to people on lists of mail-in voters that states must turn over to the USPS.True
- The Supreme Court declined to block an executive order that announced Donald Trump's plans to interfere with the election using the U.S. Postal Service.True