Once again — for at least the fifth time, across Tangerine 1.0 and 2.0, Baby-T has been TRO-ed or enjoined, from using the US Post Office as a means of political intimidation. [The legacy graphic at right is from Tangerine 1.0, as old DeJoy tried some similar lawlessness — and was thwarted by a WA State federal court. I won’t bother to make a new graphic — Trump’s lawlessness here is simply… obvious — again. And now a Boston federal court has said so, again — after a DC one did a month ago.]

Here is the very well-reasoned ruling. It will be affirmed as the law of the land, but not until after Novemebr will it reach the Supremes (so the purported rule will not impact the mid-terms):

…On emergency review, on August 24, 2026, the United States Supreme Court concluded that this court lacked jurisdiction to review challenges to the EO’s constitutionality where it was speculative as to whether the USPS would (1) propose a rule; (2) weigh the comments; and (3) issue a final rule consistent with the EO’s directives. Trump v. California, 609 U.S. __, 2026 WL 2473573, at *4 (Aug. 24, 2026) (per curiam). . . . The Supreme Court explicitly noted, however, that the disposition of the government’s emergency application “does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful[….]”

[Almost immediately,] the USPS [has] gone ahead and noticed a proposed rule, solicited and reviewed comments, and issued a Final Rule. See 91 Fed. Reg. 54966….

[Under the proposed final rule,] State or local election officials must submit their ballot envelope and return envelope designs to the USPS for approval, id.; and (3) after obtaining approval of the return ballot envelopes, but precludes election officials from uploading voter information until the USPS approves the ballot envelopes and return ballot envelopes. 91 Fed. Reg. at 54991 (DMM 705.24.4.2(f)). And where a State or local election official does not obtain envelope and return envelope design approval, or does not upload voter information, or does not include unique intelligent mail barcodes on ballot envelopes, the USPS will not mail ballots to voters. 91 Fed. Reg. at 54991 ballot envelope and return envelope designs, State or local election officials must input each voter’s information into a USPS-run electronic portal, 91 Fed. Reg. at 549991 (DMM 705.24.4.2).

The Final Rule provides no timeline for USPS’s approval of ballot envelopes and return ballot envelopes, but precludes election officials from uploading voter information until the USPS approves the ballot envelopes and return ballot envelopes. 91 Fed. Reg. at 54991 (DMM 705.24.4.2(f)). And where a State or local election official does not obtain envelope and return envelope design approval, or does not upload voter information, or does not include unique intelligent mail barcodes on ballot envelopes, the USPS will not mail ballots to voters. 91 Fed. Reg. at 54991….

Plaintiff States promptly challenged the Final Rule in a new action, and Plaintiff Organizations promptly supplemented their complaint to add allegations regarding the Final Rule. In the pending motions, both groups of Plaintiffs seek preliminary injunctive relief and request that the court stay Defendants’ implementation of the Final Rule, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65….

Defendants now claim that Plaintiffs are too late “because appellate review in the ordinary course would come too late for the 2026 midterms.” But the question is not when appellate review will be completed. The issue before the court is whether Plaintiffs have met the traditional standards for emergency relief…. [And so, the court TROs the inane rule.]

It is as plain as the nose on your face — as a matter of black letter federal law — that the Post Office cannot be used by 1600 Penn to change state and local law, on mail in voting (to suppress votes from less mobile humans).

That is not a federal concern, at all — unless the mail-in process is disenfranchising protected classes of would-be voters — and then, it is the sole province of the DoJ. Here, Tangerine would purport to stand the law on its head, to stop lawful votes from being counted. Insane — but onward, resolutely just the same. Ever, onward.

नमस्ते