Judge Indira Talwani Becomes New National Security Threat
The following is from VoterGA
EO14399 Background
On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14399 entitled Ensuring
Citizenship and Integrity in Federal Elections. The EO orders the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) United States Postal Service (USPS) and the Attorney General (AG) to take
steps within their power to secure mail-in balloting and ensure all voters in federal
elections are U.S. citizens.
Section 2 orders the DHS Secretary to transmit to each State a list of confirmed U.S.
citizens who will be above the age of 18 at the time of an upcoming Federal election. It
requires the list to be updated and transmitted to State election officials no fewer than 60
days before each regularly scheduled Federal election, or promptly upon request by a
State for such an election. It provides for individuals to access their records and update or
correct them and for States to routinely supplement or provide suggested modifications
through a designated DHS contact.
Section 3 ordered the Postmaster General to initiate proposed rulemaking provisions
specifying that all outbound ballot mail must be mailed in an envelope that:
(a) is marked as Official Election Mail;
(b) contains tracking technology such as a unique Intelligent Mail barcode;
(c) has undergone a mail envelope design review by the USPS to ensure compliance
with USPS mailing standards.
The rulemaking provision order further specifies that:
(d) no fewer than 90 days prior to a Federal election, any State may choose to notify
the USPS if it intends to allow for absentee ballots to be transmitted by the USPS.
(e) any notifying State should further indicate whether it intends to submit to the
USPS, no fewer than 60 days before the election, a list of state voters eligible to
vote in a Federal Election to whom the State intends to provide an absentee ballot
to be transmitted via the USPS;
(f) the USPS shall not transmit absentee ballots from any individual unless those
individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list;
(g) the USPS shall provide each State with a list of individuals who are enrolled with
the USPS, for absentee ballots provided by the State, along with unique ballot
envelope identifiers for their absentee ballots;
(h)the USPS shall enable each State to routinely supplement and provide suggested
modifications to the State’s Absentee Participation List in advance of any Federal
election, consistent with applicable State law.
Section 4 orders the Attorney General to enforce compliance with the applicable Federal
statutes and prioritize the investigation and potential prosecution of State and local
officials or others who issue Federal ballots to individuals not eligible to vote in a Federal
election as per Section 2.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
While the U.S. Constitution allocates the conduct of elections to the states, it provides
overriding legislative authority to Congress:
• “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but
the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as
to the Place of Chusing [sp.] Senators” Art. I Sec. IV
The Constitution provides the President undisputed authority to enforce all laws made
by Congress or the states:
• “…he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” Art. II Sec. III:
Federal law clearly prohibits non-citizens from voting:
• “(a)It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part
for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President,
Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of
Representatives …” 18 U.S. Code § 611
• “(f)Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of
the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or
local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)— Shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” 18 U.S. Code § 1015
Federal law also prohibits mail fraud:
• “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to
defraud, … or attempting to do so, places in any post office or authorized
depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered
by the Postal Service, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail… shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned…” 18 U.S. Code § 1341
• “Whoever steals, takes, or abstracts, or by fraud or deception obtains, or
attempts so to obtain, from or out of any mail, post office, or station thereof,
letter box, mail receptacle, or any mail route or other authorized depository for
mail matter… Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned…” 18 U.S. Code § 1708
There are also a variety of other laws the President has a duty to enforce such as:
• 18 U.S. Code § 2 – Principal offenders against the U.S.
• 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against U.S. citizen rights
• 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
• 18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Falsifications against the U.S.
• 18 U.S. Code § 10307 – Prohibited Election Acts
• 52 U.S. Code § 20511 – Criminal Penalties
LEGAL CHALLENGES
Although EO14399 is constitutionally sound as explained above, several legal challenges
were filed by Democrat aligned state AGs, Senators and civic groups seeking temporary
and permanent injunctions against the order. The most prominent lawsuit is California v.
Trump which 23 Democrat AGs filed in Massachusetts where they correctly believed
would offer favorable rulings.
Cal. v. Trump Plaintiffs allege that Section 2 of the EO transgresses State Constitutional
power to determine the manner of elections by creating a federal State Citizenship List
that conflicts with state voter rolls. They contend that States are only authorized to issue
a ballot to individuals not on the list. They also allege that Section 3 of the EO
transgresses State Constitutional power to determine manner of elections by creating
new limitations on voters using mail-in voting.
But there are basic fallacies in these claims:
• A federal state citizenship list is not a voter roll;
• States may still issue ballots for state elections to individuals not on the list;
• There is no new burden imposed on voters. States simply notify the USPS of any
individuals for which the state wants to use the USPS for federal ballot delivery.
TALWANI’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL INJUNCTION
But on June 25, 2026, Massachusetts federal Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee
who should have recused herself for donating to Democrat Presidential and Senatorial
candidates, agreed with the Plaintiffs’ arguments in Cal. v. Trump and went much further.
She claimed: “Therefore, because the States determine who is eligible to vote for their
state legislators, the Constitution indirectly grants the States authority to determine who
is eligible to vote for federal legislators.” That is like claiming a bank will determine who
can access your bank account.
After admitting she has no statutory authority to judicially review Plaintiffs’ claims, she
authorized herself to do it anyway: “a claim alleging that the President acted in excess of
his statutory authority is judicially reviewable even absent an applicable statutory review
provision.” Talwani also admitted that: “the EO explicitly requires that its directives comply
with the law.” but then Talwani refuses to accept it and “…considers whether the
President has the authority to issue the EO regardless of the qualifying language.”
The EO does not address voter eligibility, but Talwani concluded: “The Constitution
provides that only the States determine voter eligibility requirements…” even though
there is no such Constitutional clause.
Although 18 U.S.C. §§ 611, 1015 explicitly mandate that only citizens can vote, Talwani
ignored those laws and only considered the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) saying:
“Notably, nowhere in HAVA does Congress prescribe who should be included on State
voter lists.” She further rationalized that: “Accordingly, …the President lacks any authority
to compile voter lists for each State” even though a federal ballot mail list is not a voter
list. She also noted: “However, no law enacted by Congress delegates authority to control
mail-in voting to USPS” despite the reality that establishing federal ballot mail criteria in
no way attempts to control the entire state mail-in voting process.
To contend claims were ripe for her to adjudicate, she speculated without citations that:
“It is clear that the federal agencies charged with compiling Confirmed Citizen Lists lack
the ability to create complete and accurate lists of the U.S. citizens residing in every State.”
She further speculated that: “The Lists are being used as an enforcement mechanism that
… will chill local election officials from complying with legal obligations to ensure that all
eligible citizens may vote.”
Remarkably, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts upheld Talwani’s
speculative claims adding its own speculation on top of hers: “…were the (executive
order) to take effect for the elections…in November, it would sow confusion and threaten
disenfranchisement of many eligible voters”
U.S. SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS TALWANI
But the U.S. Supreme Court admonished Talwan’s bizarre arguments and reversed both
her and the Appeals Court.
In regards to preparing citizenship lists in Section 2(a), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded:
• “This provision is an internal directive from the President to a subordinate. It
imposes no obligation on the States so they suffer no concrete harm…”;
• “This internal directive does not regulate the States’ voter registration processes.
Nor does it impinge on the States’ authority to create and enforce a legal code for
elections.”
In regards to instructions for the AG the Supreme Court added: “The States lack standing
to challenge §2(b) for much the same reason: It does nothing to them” and “Setting
prosecutorial priorities lies within the President’s Article II power.”
They further concluded that: “Section 3 orders the Postal Service to initiate the process of
proposing a rule that might bind the States in the future… And it imposes no legal
requirements on the States (or, for that matter, on anyone outside the Executive Branch).”
The U.S. Supreme Court quoted precedents to explain the procedural fallacy of Talwani’s
injunction:
• “Standing requires an injury that is concrete, particularized and imminent rather
than conjectural or hypothetical.”
• “Ripeness forbids federal courts to adjudicate disputes that are dependent on
contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not
occur at all.”
• “But the States cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on
themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly
impending.”
The U.S. Supreme court issued an even more pointed series of comments for how Talwani
speculated claims in attempting to give herself authority to adjudicate them:
• “At the time this suit was filed—the time when standing is measured—the District
Court had to engage in a string of speculations to find this suit justiciable.”
• “It first had to speculate about whether the Postal Service would propose a rule.”
• “Then it had to speculate about how the agency would weigh the comments it
received.”
• “Then it had to speculate about whether the agency would issue a final rule.”
• “Then it had to speculate about what the final rule would say.”
• “Finally, after all that, the District Court still had to speculate about whether the
text of a hypothetical final rule would harm the States.”
The U.S. Supreme Court continued with more admonishments: “When a federal court
improperly intrudes on a coordinate branch in this way, interim relief is justified. Such
harm exists here because the injunction meddles in the workings of the Executive
Branch, preventing it from even trying to lawfully implement the Order.”
The Supreme Court explained: “The Executive Order makes no demand of the States, so
staying the District Court’s injunction will not concretely harm them. That is why this suit
was not justiciable in the first place.”
The Supreme Court reiterated: “But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the
District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.”
Finally, the Supreme Court removed the injunction citing: “And for the reasons discussed,
that injunction is likely to irreparably harm the Government if it remains in place while the
appellate process runs its course.”
CIRCUMVENTING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Although Talwani was forced to rescind her previous injunctions against President Trump’s
federal election integrity EO, the Supreme Court remand did not stop her. The very next
day, August 27, Talwani issued a temporary restraining order with the same flaws the
Supreme Court disallowed. That order was issued in a new complaint, Cal v. USPS, filed
by the same AGs against the new USPS mail-in ballot rule that establishes secure criteria
for federal ballot mail. Talwani’s new order did not mention the new complaint and USPS
rule had only been published a day earlier. Contrast that to those of us who have waited
years to have federal election cases heard.
Talwani’s new injunction concludes: “Now that the USPS has published the Final Rule,
Plaintiffs’ challenges are ripe.” But she cites only a new round of speculative claims that
the Supreme Court banned based on conditions of what may likely happen after the
Rule is implemented:
• “The Final Rule’s mandatory requirements necessitating immediate action of
Plaintiff States likely constitute concrete injury-in-fact…”
• “Similarly, Plaintiff Organizations are likely to have standing…”
• “Plaintiff Organizations are also likely to have standing based on the significant risk
…”
• “If Plaintiff States are unable to comply with the Final Rule, … they will violate their
obligations…”
• “Through the Final Rule, the USPS is refusing to send mail ballots to eligible voters
unless States or local election officials submit their mail ballot envelopes and return
envelopes…”
Although the USPS regulates all mail, Talwani finds: “the court is unaware of, and no party
has proffered, any delegation Congress has made that would permit the USPS to regulate
election mail.” Despite decades of all types of ballot fraud dating at least to Lyndon
Johnson’s 1948 U.S. Senate Election, Talwani claims: “The record continues to lack any
evidence regarding fraudulent absentee or mail-in voting”.
She then uses her new speculations to again attempt to usurp the authority of the
Executive Branch by issuing an injunction against USPS preparatory steps to mandate:
• Federal Ballot Mail Envelope standards
• Return Federal Ballot Mail Envelope standards
• Federal Ballot Mail Portal registration
• Federal Ballot Mail Portal voter enrollment
• USPS verification that Outbound Federal Ballot Mail meets enrollment standards
THE NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT
In summary, Judge Indira Talwani:
• made speculative, unconstitutional and dangerous rulings that were overturned by
the U.S. Supreme Court;
• jeopardized 2026 elections by actively fighting to delay implementation of mail-in
ballot security and U.S. Citizenship verification provisions for months
• used false arguments to side with State AGs of her political party on issues that
facilitate election cheating over the interests and protection of American voters;
• demonstrated a clear political agenda in attempting to falsely rule on the Cal v.
USPS case the day after it was filed;
• ignored explicit instructions from the U.S. Supreme Court to limit her Constitutional
overreach and conform with basic judicial procedures that determine harm;
• betrayed American voters by placing the most radical demands of her political party
over the clear authority of all three branches of the federal government.
These actions pose a clear national security threat for all American voters. They even
treasonously aid China, given recently declassified intelligence showing China’s
massive interference campaigns in U.S. elections including potential absentee ballot
fraud. Americans demand accountability and Congress must muster courage for
impeachments especially for such a poster child case of judicial corruption in our
elections.