Trump Mail-In Ballot Block Appeal: Administration Challenges Judge's Order

• The Trump administration appealed a federal judge's block on new mail-in ballot restrictions proposed by the U.S. Postal Service.
• A Maryland federal judge declined to immediately halt President Trump's latest birthright citizenship executive order but allowed advocates to amend their challenge.
• The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that sports-related prediction market contracts fall under state gambling laws, not federal derivative regulations, creating a circuit split.
• The Supreme Court is expected to release its final summer order list soon and is considering a Trump administration request regarding its transgender military ban.
• Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay allowing construction on the new White House ballroom to proceed.

This legal battle is widely anticipated to ultimately be resolved by the nation's highest court.

The Trump administration has formally appealed a federal judge's recent decision that blocked new restrictions on mail-in ballots. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani issued an order preventing the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from implementing changes to how mail-in ballots are handled. The administration promptly filed an appeal on Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, signaling a continued legal battle over voting procedures ahead of the midterm elections.

Judge Talwani's ruling specifically targeted a proposed USPS rule that would have significantly altered mail-in ballot delivery. Under this rule, the postal service intended to refuse delivery of mail ballots originating from states that do not share voter data with the agency. Furthermore, the rule stipulated that only ballots meeting certain criteria, including being enclosed in specific types of envelopes, would be delivered.

The district court found that the proposed USPS rule was likely unconstitutional and exceeded the agency's statutory authority. This legal battle is widely anticipated to ultimately be resolved by the nation's highest court, as noted by The New York Times, highlighting the significant implications for election administration.

A federal judge in Maryland, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, recently declined to issue an immediate injunction against President Donald Trump's latest executive order, which aims to limit eligibility for birthright citizenship. Despite her decision not to impose a temporary block on Friday, Judge Boardman expressed significant doubts regarding the order's legal viability, particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's previous rejection of a similar attempt by the administration.

Immigrant rights advocates had sought a temporary restraining order from Judge Boardman, who last year successfully blocked the Trump administration from enforcing an earlier 2025 executive order on birthright citizenship. However, the judge determined that she could not grant the immediate relief requested because the plaintiffs' existing lawsuit did not specifically reference the new 2026 order. Nevertheless, Judge Boardman indicated that she would permit the advocacy groups to amend their complaint and established an expedited briefing schedule, allowing them to renew their challenge against the executive order.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently sided with state regulators in a dispute over prediction markets, rejecting requests for injunctive relief from platform operators against the Nevada Gaming Control Board. In its Friday ruling, the court concluded that contracts related to sports events offered on these platforms do not qualify as derivatives regulated by the federal government. Instead, the court determined that these offerings fall under the purview of state gambling laws.

This decision addresses a fundamental disagreement between 44 states, which contend that these sports-related event contracts are essentially a form of sports betting, and the prediction market platforms themselves, along with their federal regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The platforms and the CFTC argue that all event contracts, irrespective of their subject matter, are swaps—a type of derivative under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC. Legal experts have long predicted that the question of whether state gaming regulators or the CFTC holds the authority to regulate sports-related event contracts would eventually reach the Supreme Court. This outcome now appears highly probable, given that the 9th Circuit's ruling creates a direct contradiction with a prior decision from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, establishing a circuit split.

The Supreme Court continues to be a focal point for significant legal developments, even as its summer recess draws to a close. This week marked 59 years since the Senate confirmed Thurgood Marshall, paving the way for him to become the first Black justice on the nation's highest court. More recently, the Trump administration formally requested on Friday that the Supreme Court review the constitutionality of its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military.

In other court news, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay on August 21, a temporary order that allowed ongoing construction of the new White House ballroom to continue without interruption. The court is expected to release its decision in this interim docket case at any time. Furthermore, the Supreme Court is scheduled to release its third and final summer order list this Friday at 9:30 a.m. EDT, which typically addresses various procedural matters and pending applications.

Source: Original reporting via Reuters, The New York Times, and CNBC.