WASHINGTON, D.C. A federal judge on Tuesday expanded a block on a key part of President Trump's mail-in voting order, barring the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out any directives that would delay or reject ballots based on postmark timing. The injunction now covers all postal employees and contractors, extending an earlier ruling that applied only to senior officials.

Judge's Ruling

U.S. District Judge Samantha Lee issued the expanded order in response to a motion from voting rights groups. Lee wrote that the Trump administration's policy "unlawfully burdens the fundamental right to vote" and that the Postal Service's role in election mail requires "strict judicial oversight." The judge said the original block was insufficient because lower-level postal managers could still enforce the president's directives without authorization from Washington.

"The risk of confusion and inconsistency is too great to leave in place," Lee wrote. She ordered the Postal Service to issue a notice to all employees that the executive order's deadlines and processing requirements are not in effect. The judge also requested a status report from the agency within two weeks.

White House Response

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the ruling an "overreach" and said the president has the authority to secure elections. "The administration will appeal this decision, which undermines commonsense safeguards against mail-in ballot fraud," Leavitt said. She declined to say whether the Postal Service would be directed to ignore the injunction.

The Department of Justice filed a notice of appeal shortly after the ruling, according to court records. A spokesperson for the department said the executive order is lawful and necessary to ensure that ballots are counted accurately.

Postal Service Compliance

USPS spokesperson Mark Davidson said the agency "will comply with all court orders" and is reviewing the judge's ruling to determine what changes are needed. He added that the Postal Service has "no interest in disenfranchising voters" and will continue to deliver election mail as directed by state law.

Postal workers' unions have also expressed support for the injunction. "This order protects the integrity of the election process," said Diana Salazar, president of the American Postal Workers Union. "We will follow the court's direction to ensure every valid ballot is delivered on time."

Lawsuit Origins

The lawsuit was filed in May by the American Civil Liberties Union and several other voting rights organizations. They challenged an executive order that required the Postal Service to treat all ballots as delinquent unless they arrived by Election Day and to prioritize other mail over election mail. The plaintiffs argued that the order would disenfranchise thousands of military and overseas voters who rely on the postal system.

In late July, Judge Lee issued an initial temporary restraining order preventing the Postal Service from enforcing the ballot deadlines. The new injunction expands that protection to all postal staff, including those at local post offices that process ballots.

Reactions and Next Steps

ACLU attorney Sarah Jenkins praised the expanded ruling. "This is a critical victory for voters," Jenkins said. "The court has made clear that the Postal Service cannot be used as a tool to suppress the vote." Jenkins added that the order will remain in effect until a full hearing on the case, scheduled for October. Election officials in several battleground states have said the injunction provides clarity as they prepare for the November 3 midterms. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said the ruling ensures that ballots postmarked by Election Day will be counted. "We can now assure voters that their mail-in ballots will be accepted," Benson said.

The expanded block does not affect other parts of the executive order, including provisions on voter roll maintenance and ballot collection. Those provisions are being challenged separately in other courts. The administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene, but no decision has been announced.

Legal experts say the judge's ruling could set a precedent for how courts review executive actions affecting election administration. "The court is taking a firm stance against blanket restrictions on mail-in voting," said law professor Michael Trenton of Georgetown University. "This is a significant check on presidential power."