District Judge Indira Talwani, District of MassachusettsLeft-wing voting organizations are racing back to Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in a renewed attempt to shut down President Donald Trump’s mail-ballot integrity rules before the November midterms.On Wednesday, the plaintiffs filed a 29-page memorandum asking Talwani to immediately issue a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction blocking the U.S. Postal Service’s final Ballot Mail for Federal Elections rule.The new filing comes just hours after Talwani was forced to vacate her nationwide injunction following the Supreme Court’s August 24 ruling in Trump v. California.As The Gateway Pundit reported on Wednesday, Talwani conceded that, after Trump v. California, the League of Women Voters plaintiffs are “not likely to prevail as to ripeness” unless they rewrite their complaint now that the Postal Service has issued a final rule according to a nine-page order.She didn’t do it happily. Reporting around the order makes clear the Supreme Court’s decision “compelled” her to toss the freeze even as she kept smearing the president’s election-integrity directive as likely to unleash “chaos.”But the legal assault is already back.The plaintiffs, including the League of Women Voters, U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, and several affiliated organizations, claim their amended complaint has now cured the ripeness defect identified by the Supreme Court because they are challenging the Postal Service’s final rule itself, rather than merely President Trump’s executive order directing the agency to begin rulemaking.That distinction is at the center of the new fight.The Supreme Court stayed Talwani’s related injunction on Monday after concluding that the earlier challenge was based on speculation about what USPS might eventually do.The Court explained that federal judges review final agency rules, not proposals or internal presidential directives telling an agency to consider a rule.The majority then explicitly left the door open for a later lawsuit, stating: “If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the States, they may challenge that rule.”The high court did not decide whether the final USPS rules are constitutional. Its ruling addressed the threshold questions of standing and ripeness.Talwani acknowledged that problem Wednesday when she vacated her earlier injunction, writing that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on ripeness grounds unless they amended their complaint to reflect that a final rule had been issued. Her order expressly allowed them to return with a new request for an injunction.They wasted no time.According to the new emergency filing, the plaintiffs argue that the August 21 final rule makes the dispute “concrete and imminent beyond any doubt.” They accuse USPS of seizing powers over election administration that belong to the states and Congress and claim the rule violates the constitutional separation of powers.The plaintiffs also argue that the rule is ultra vires, a legal term meaning that an agency has acted beyond the authority granted to it by Congress.“USPS issued the Final Rule without statutory authority and in violation of the separation of powers,” the organizations claim.This is the same basic theory Talwani accepted before the Supreme Court intervened on procedural grounds.The final USPS rule, published in the Federal Register on August 26, creates uniform preparation and tracking standards for federal ballot mail.Under the rule:Outbound and return federal ballot envelopes must carry the official Election Mail logo, comply with automation standards, and include unique Intelligent Mail barcodes.State and local election officials must use a federal ballot-mail portal to submit the voter’s name, address, originating state, and the unique barcodes associated with the outbound and return envelopes.USPS employees will review outbound federal ballot mail before accepting it to determine whether the mailing complies with the preparation standards and whether the intended recipients were included on the state-submitted participation list.Noncompliant outbound mailings will not be accepted and will be returned to the authorized ballot mailer so the errors can be corrected and the mailing resubmitted.The Postal Service says the safeguards will improve tracking, visibility, operational efficiency, and fraud detection. The agency also insists that state officials, not USPS, will continue deciding who is eligible to vote and who belongs on each state’s mail-ballot list.“The Postal Service will not play any role in determining voter eligibility, maintaining voter rolls, or counting ballots,” USPS stated in the final rule.But the left-wing plaintiffs portray the new safeguards as a threat to mail voting itself.They argue that voters could be disenfranchised if election officials fail to place them on the state-submitted list or use envelopes that do not meet the federal specifications. They also claim the requirements will force advocacy groups to rewrite voter-education materials weeks before the election.The filing says U.S. Vote Foundation estimates that revisions to its online tools and website will cost approximately $50,000. Other plaintiffs claim their existing voter guides and outreach materials have been rendered incomplete or obsolete.In other words, the same organizations that have spent years defending mass mail-in voting now want one Obama-appointed judge to stop uniform federal tracking and verification rules before they can be used in the 2026 election.The plaintiffs are now asking Talwani to immediately block USPS from implementing or enforcing the final rule while the litigation proceeds.A hearing is scheduled for September 3.The post THEY’RE BACK: Far-Left Nonprofits Race Back to Obama Judge to Block Trump’s Postal Election Integrity Rules After Talwani Forced to Lift Nationwide Injunction appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.