An Obama-appointed federal judge is being branded an “activist” after she again blocked new U.S. Postal Service (USPS) mail-ballot requirements ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued a 14-day temporary restraining order last week blocking key portions of a new USPS policy governing the mailing of outbound ballots. The rule, developed in response to an executive order from President Donald Trump, would require election officials to submit ballot-envelope designs for approval and upload voter information and unique tracking barc

odes to a new USPS portal.

Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Election Project, accused Talwani of trying to “run out the clock,” arguing that the continued litigation could prevent the rule from taking effect before states begin mailing ballots for the midterms.

“Because of the antics of the left in this case, it’s very possible that we will not be able to get this rule put in place for the 2026 midterms,” Snead told Fox News Digital. “Ballots do go out in just a couple of days, and I think, to a certain extent, their campaign to run out the clock may have succeeded.”

MAIL-VOTING CRACKDOWN MOVES AHEAD AS TRUMP COURT WIN OPENS DOOR TO FEDERAL ACTION

North Carolina county election boards are scheduled to begin mailing absentee ballots Friday. Snead and Gregory Teufel, founder of OGC Law, LLC, both noted that election officials in the state had already taken steps toward complying with the USPS requirements.

Talwani found that the states lacked the time and money to redesign ballot envelopes, obtain USPS approval, modify election-management systems, train officials to use the new portal and upload voter information before the midterms. She concluded that compliance was “practically impossible” for the approaching election and warned that eligible voters could be disenfranchised.

Snead pushed back on that conclusion, arguing that the rule puts longstanding USPS recommendations into mandatory requirements.

“It’s a fairly straightforward rule,” Snead said. “It’s largely premised on best practices that are already in place and gathering data that states already possess. The burdens are extraordinarily minimal as far as compliance is concerned, and the Postal Service is really just trying to better regulate the mail—not attempt to seize control of elections or to take away fundamental constitutional questions, like who is eligible to vote, away from the states.”

Talwani’s June 25 permanent injunction barred USPS from completing portions of the rulemaking process for the 2026 election.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT REJECTS TRUMP BID TO ENFORCE MAIL BALLOT ORDER AHEAD OF MIDTERM ELECTIONS

US President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, March 31, 2026. Trump signed an executive order Tuesday intended to make it harder for voters to cast mail-in ballots, escalating his long-running campaign against a practice used by millions of Americans. (Aaron Schwartz/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The dispute reached the Supreme Court, which stayed Talwani’s earlier judgment on Aug. 24 after concluding that the Trump administration was likely to prevail on its argument that the original challenge was premature because USPS had not yet issued a final rule.

The justices did not decide whether the executive order or the subsequent USPS rule was lawful. After USPS finalized the policy, the Democratic-led states amended their lawsuit to directly challenge the rule. Talwani then issued the latest temporary restraining order.

“Ironically, the judge created that problem because her original injunction prevented the U.S. Postal Service from developing the rules earlier, months earlier, which would have allowed the states more time to prepare to follow the rule if the Supreme Court were to allow the rule to proceed,” Teufel said.

“When the judge points to expenses and practical difficulties, those are expenses and difficulties created in part by the court itself—not by the rule and not by the attempted implementation of the rule,” he added.

Talwani disputed that characterization in her latest order, writing that “no such delay occurred” because USPS had proceeded with publishing a proposed rule, receiving comments and issuing its final policy despite the earlier injunction.

POSTAL SERVICE THRUST INTO MAIL-IN BALLOT FIGHT AS TRUMP ORDER GETS TIED UP IN COURT

President Donald Trump signs an executive order on mail ballots, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., March 31, 2026. (REUTERS/Evan Vucci)

Despite his criticism, Teufel stopped short of accusing Talwani of acting for partisan reasons.

“It’s hard for me to accuse the court of partisanship based on the information I have at the present time,” Teufel said. “Certainly, the court exceeded its authority in issuing the initial injunction against the executive order, which is not a good look.”

Talwani is set to hear arguments Thursday on the challengers’ request for a preliminary injunction, which could block the USPS rule for a longer period as the litigation continues. The existing 14-day temporary restraining order remains in place in the meantime while the Trump administration’s appeal of Talwani’s earlier judgment is pending before the First Circuit.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

Snead argued that the legal dispute turns on whether USPS is regulating elections or merely setting conditions for the mail it carries.

“What the government counters is that this is just a Postal Service rule like any other and that the Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail that is using the Postal Service,” Snead said. “This is essentially the same sort of rule as requiring that mail pieces be in envelopes, for instance, or have postage paid.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Even if the policy does not take effect for the midterms, Snead said states should have ample time to comply before the next presidential election.

“This is a very mundane rule, very simple to comply with, especially on the kind of timeline that we’re talking about in preparation for 2028,” Snead said. “It’s not about being able to comply with this rule. It is just about resisting efforts to bring greater transparency and security to mail voting.”