A federal judge in Boston on Tuesday ruled against President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and directly involve the U.S. Postal Service in election operations in a way that would limit mail voting. This was reported by Qazaqyia.kz citing Associated Press.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani had already halted the order Trump signed in March, his second one attempting to set national election rules. On June 25, she sided with Democratic state attorneys general in granting summary judgment, preventing the core parts of Trump's order from taking effect.

Tuesday's ruling creates another legal hurdle for the Trump administration to overcome should it get the initial injunction lifted by the U.S. Supreme Court. "That it is now less than 90 days before the November 3, 2026 midterm elections underscores the critical need for an injunction to prevent Defendants from changing election rules on the eve of the election," she wrote.

The Trump administration in late July requested that the Supreme Court halt lower court decisions that have blocked the sweeping changes in nearly half the country. In the latest lawsuit, Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, sided with the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups.

Her ruling granting a preliminary injunction barred the Postal Service from taking any steps to implement the order for this year's midterm elections. She said the administration has so far declined to defend the constitutionality of the executive order. "The executive branch has no authority to regulate elections," she wrote.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. "This ruling is a victory for voters and for the Constitution," Marcia Johnson of the League of Women Voters said in a statement. "Neither the president nor the U.S. Postal Service has the authority to rewrite election rules."

Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits, both filed in federal court in Boston, that the Republican president's order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The League of Women Voters also argued that Trump lacked the authority to issue his order and the U.S. Postal Service and other defendants lack the authority to carry it out.

Trump's Republican administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits, argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims. They also argued that the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lack the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, said the harms the plaintiffs referenced were subjective, because much can change with the voting list before it is made final. He also said no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.

Trump's executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to suggest that there is widespread voting by noncitizens. Along with his executive orders, Trump is pushing legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create a proof-of-citizenship mandate. The SAVE America Act has passed the House but has stalled in the Senate.

States already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation. Trump issued the order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the U.S. Postal Service.