Judge Tawani found the executive order unconstitutional because it violated Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution regarding state authority to regulate elections.
Posted by Badlands Media, Checked
- Sources
- 3 support3 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 65%
Badlands MediaSep 16, 2026
Sources on the June 25, 2026 ruling by Judge Indira Talwani (the claim's 'Tawani') support that she found the executive order unconstitutional on Elections Clause grounds, citing Article I, Section 4 and states' authority over elections.
What was said
… Yes, and and we'll get into all that stuff when we get into the, ah to the descent. I encourage you all to read Judge Tawani's opinion. I think it's very, very strong. Basically, she found several things going on with this executive order. First, on the merits, that it was unconstitutional because it violated the article 1, Section 4, authority of the states to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections. That Congress can also act, but it had not given the president this authority, and it hadn't given the postal service this authority. …
Badlands Media · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. PBS NewsHour reports Talwani found the order unconstitutional because it violates the Elections Clause, Article I, Section 4, which vests election procedure in state legislatures or Congress, not the president.[1]
Supports. FOX 13 Seattle quotes Article I, Section 4 and reports the order would take election management out of the states' hands, consistent with the ruling's Elections Clause basis.[2]
Supports. Democracy Docket reports Talwani's June 25 ruling declared key parts of the order void for exceeding presidential power and encroaching on states' authority to administer elections.[3]
Context. Lynnwood Times and the Constitution Center describe the core holding as ultra vires and unconstitutional under separation of powers, so the Article I, Section 4 ground is presented alongside other grounds rather than as the only one.[4][5]
Context. A later ruling by Talwani on a separate lawsuit, reported by AP, also found the administration had not defended the order's constitutionality, and no source contradicts the finding that the order was unconstitutional.[6]
Sources
6 sources: 1 tier 2, 5 not rated
- 1How Trump's attempt to restrict mail ballots is being ...pbs.org · tier 2 · cited for: supports
- 2Judge stops Trump's push to make federal voter list | FOX 13 Seattlefox13seattle.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 3A federal judge has said from the start Trump's anti-mail voting order is unconstitutional. Here's howdemocracydocket.com · not rated · cited for: supports
- 4Trump mail voting executive order on Supreme Court's radarconstitutioncenter.org · not rated · cited for: context
- 5Executive Order on citizenship lists and mail-in voting ...lynnwoodtimes.com · not rated · cited for: context
- 6Judge again bars Trump administration from implementing ...boston.com · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- 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.True
- The US Supreme Court blocked an executive order signed by President Donald Trump that ended the right for all US citizens to vote by mail.False
- Judge Aileen Cannon ruled that Jack Smith could not constitutionally wield the power of a special counsel.True
- The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration's executive order regarding mail-in voting regulations.Mixed
- The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Postal Service rule was likely a regulation of the manner, time, place, and manner of holding elections, which is assigned to states and Congress, not an executive agency.True