League of Women Voters of Massachusetts et al. v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-11549-IT (D. Mass.). FACT: August 26, 2026 memorandum and order, ECF 204. Talwani granted Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 196) and vacated the August 11, 2026 preliminary injunction (Doc. 183).
She wrote that, while the plaintiff organizations “have substantial arguments that might persuade the Supreme Court to reach a different result if Plaintiff Organizations have an opportunity to present them,” “this court is compelled by the Supreme Court’s ruling to grant Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider [Doc. No. 196] and vacate the preliminary injunction obtained by the Plaintiff Organizations.” “Compelled” is her word in that order. The order is without prejudice to the plaintiff organizations filing a new motion for a preliminary injunction after filing their anticipated Amended Complaint.
FACT: The August 11 order, as this paper restates it, was a nationwide injunction enjoining the United States Postal Service from implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14399 for elections before or on November 3, 2026. Two days earlier, on August 24, the Supreme Court stayed her separate states injunction in Trump v. California, No. 26A124. She treated that stay as “an intervening change in law that warrants the discontinuation of the preliminary injunction,” and concluded the plaintiff organizations “are not likely to prevail as to ripeness without amending their complaint to reflect the fact that a Final Rule has now issued.” The conclusion grants the motion and “VACATES its August 11, 2026 Preliminary Injunction.”
A vacatur of a preliminary injunction is not a criminal finding. The paper is the paper.