August 31, 2026: She Denied a Stay of the USPS Mail-Ballot TRO.

League of Women Voters of Massachusetts et al. v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-11549-IT (D. Mass.), joined with California v. USPS, No. 1:26-cv-13917-IT. FACT: August 31, 2026 electronic order, ECF 242. Title on CourtListener: Order on Motion to Stay. It denies Defendants’ motion to stay the August 27 temporary restraining order pending appeal (ECF 228) and Intervenor-Defendants’ motion to stay (ECF 230). The order states: “These motions are DENIED.”

FACT: The paper being left in place is the August 27 TRO, ECF 218 — a fourteen-day stay of listed sections of the published USPS Final Rule, Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, 91 Fed. Reg. 54966. That TRO is different paper from the August 11 nationwide preliminary injunction against Section 3 of Executive Order 14399, which she vacated on August 26 (ECF 204) after the Supreme Court stay in Trump v. California, No. 26A124. Do not write that she defied the stay of that vacated injunction. This is a stay denial on the new TRO against the Final Rule.

“First, although Defendants and Intervenor-Defendants seek a stay ‘pending appeal,’ the TRO is not an appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) where it is only in place for fourteen days, and the court has set a briefing schedule and a September 3, 2026 hearing on the pending preliminary injunction motions.”

FACT on notices of appeal, quoted from the district docket, not invented. On August 28 the federal defendants filed a notice of appeal of the TRO, ECF 221. The clerk entered First Circuit number 26-1988, ECF 225. Intervenor states filed a notice of appeal the same day, ECF 222; First Circuit number 26-1989, ECF 226. Democracy Docket reported Monday that neither the Department of Justice nor the red states had filed an appeal with the First Circuit yet. That article conflicts with those docket entries. The order itself is quoted above. A notice of appeal on the district docket is not a holding that the TRO is appealable; she wrote that it is not.

FACT: On the merits of the stay, the order repeats that USPS likely lacked authority to issue the Final Rule and that the rule is likely unconstitutional and contrary to law. It says 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.” It leaves the fourteen-day TRO in place. The September 3 preliminary-injunction hearing remains on the calendar (briefing order ECF 212). An electronic stay denial is not a final judgment and not a Supreme Court holding.