Talwani denied those requests on Monday, concluding that the temporary restraining order was unlikely to be immediately appealable because it lasts only 14 days and the court has established an expedited schedule for considering a preliminary injunction.

“Although Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants seek a stay ‘pending appeal,’ the TRO is not an appealable order” under federal law when it remains in effect for only 14 days, and an expedited hearing has been scheduled, Talwani wrote.

The USPS rule establishes ballot-envelope standards and requires state and local election officials to upload and certify voter information through a federal portal before using the mail service for federal ballots. If the rule were implemented, USPS would not deliver ballots from states that decline to share the required information or from states that use envelopes failing to meet the agency’s criteria. The rule is meant to ensure only eligible voters receive ballots.

Talwani again concluded that USPS likely lacked the authority to issue the rule and that the regulation was likely unconstitutional and contrary to law.

She also rejected the DOJ’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s succinct Aug. 24 ruling in the dispute, calling it “cynical.”

The Supreme Court, in a brief order last week, found that an earlier challenge to Trump’s executive order was premature because USPS had not yet issued a final rule. The Postal Service has since finalized the regulation, prompting states and voting organizations to bring renewed challenges.

“A Final Rule has now issued, and contrary to Defendants’ cynical interpretation, the Supreme Court has not endorsed the view that any challenge to the Final Rule is now too late,” Talwani wrote.

The administration argued that appellate review of the temporary order could otherwise come too late for the Nov. 3 midterm elections. Talwani said that argument misconstrued the Supreme Court’s decision.

The judge also rejected the administration’s characterization of the rule’s requirements as “modest.” She said the regulation conditions state use of USPS for election mail on the agency’s approval of ballot and return envelopes and requires election officials to upload and certify voter information through its portal.

In a filing Saturday, the DOJ argued that the rule imposes limited informational requirements and falls within USPS’s authority to establish special procedures for sensitive mail. The government compared the treatment of ballots to conditions the agency has adopted for items such as cremated remains and replica explosives.

Talwani found that the risks to states and voters weighed in favor of keeping the temporary block in place. She cited declarations from election officials who said full compliance before the midterm elections would likely be impossible and could prevent eligible voters from receiving ballots.

The judge said her order was narrowly tailored and still allows USPS to establish its Ballot Mail Portal and communicate with states about ballot-design standards. States may participate voluntarily, but the agency cannot make compliance mandatory while the temporary order remains in effect.

Talwani concluded that imposing the changes roughly two months before the midterm elections would conflict with the public’s need for “clear and settled” rules of the road.

The renewed legal battle began after USPS issued its final rule earlier this month to implement portions of Trump’s March executive order on election security. Twenty-four states and voting organizations challenged the regulation after it was finalized.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPEALS JUDGE’S SECOND BLOCK ON MAIL-IN VOTING ORDER

Talwani previously blocked parts of the executive order before USPS completed its rulemaking process. The Supreme Court last week found that challenge premature, clearing the way for the agency to finalize the regulation and for opponents to challenge the completed rule.

The 1st Circuit must now confront whether to review Talwani’s short-term order, though it is not clear whether the appeals court will act before her expedited hearing on Thursday. The dispute could ultimately return to the Supreme Court.