On Saturday the First Circuit affirmed Judge Indira Talwani’s injunction blocking implementation of key provisions of President Trump’s election executive order. The court concluded that the government had failed to make the “strong showing” required for the extraordinary remedy of a stay. 

At this point, the government can ask for the full First Circuit to review the case, or it can appeal to the Supreme Court. Either way, it will have to act quickly. The clock is ticking, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to see a path for the government to implement the executive order and for the Postal Service to issue and implement a final rule in time to impact the November 2026 election.

The First Circuit emphasized that it was not deciding whether the executive order is lawful. The Government had argued that the 23 Plaintiff States did not have standing because the case was premature — the Postal Service had yet to issue a final rule on mail voting, and other elements of the executive order were still in a preliminar stage. 

The court rejected that argument. It found that the executive order itself had already altered election administration by imposing “a clear set of rapidly approaching deadlines by which states must coordinate with federal officials and comply with new voting procedures.” Because the November election is only weeks away, the court concluded, “The Plaintiff States have no practical choice but to respond to the EO now.”

The executive order, the court said, has already “produced an incredible strain” on state election offices as they develop compliance plans, revise procedures, coordinate with federal agencies, and postpone other election-related work.

The panel also rejected the government’s argument that any challenge to the USPS provisions must await a final rule. Several states have already purchased ballot envelopes for the 2026 election cycle, while the executive order directs USPS to require new envelope specifications. The government itself had conceded that redesigning those envelopes “would add costs to Plaintiff States.” 

The court likewise agreed with Judge Talwani that the executive order presents a credible threat of enforcement against state officials. The order expressly directs “the investigation and, as appropriate, the prosecution of State and local officials” and authorizes withholding federal funds. Quoting the Supreme Court, the panel observed that “‘[p]eople do not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not come around.'”

The remaining stay factors also favored the states. The court found that the injunction applies only to the plaintiff states and only through the November 3, 2026 election, while the government’s claims of operational confusion for USPS rested on “speculative and conclusory statements.” 

By contrast, the states had demonstrated immediate harms, including diversion of staff time, compliance costs, potential criminal exposure, and interference with their authority to administer elections. 

Finally, the court noted that the government had made “no argument that [its] actions were legal on the merits,” adding that “there is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful [government] action.”

Judge William J. Dunlap concurred in part and dissented in part. He would have narrowed the injunction as it applies to the DHS citizenship-list provisions, concluding that those sections do not presently injure the states. But he agreed that the USPS provisions inflict sufficiently immediate and concrete harms because states must prepare now for impending elections, replace ballot envelopes if necessary, and comply with imminent deadlines.