The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow nationwide enforcement of an executive order that aims to restrict mail-in voting ahead of the November midterm elections. The Department of Justice filed an emergency application on July 27 seeking to overturn a federal judge’s ruling that blocked key parts of the order in 23 mostly Democratic-led states and Washington, D.C., which had challenged the directive as unconstitutional.
The executive order, signed by President Donald Trump in late March, directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of U.S. citizens eligible to vote, intended to be used by the U.S. Postal Service to determine who may receive mail-in ballots. It also requires the Justice Department to prioritize investigating local election officials who issue ballots to those deemed ineligible. The administration argues the order is part of efforts to promote “election integrity” and prevent voter fraud, although claims of widespread fraud in mail voting have been repeatedly disputed by experts and courts.
The legal challenge began when more than 20 Democratic attorneys general filed suit, contending that the order exceeds presidential authority by infringing on powers constitutionally granted to states and Congress to regulate federal elections. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts ruled in June that the president lacks power to unilaterally impose changes on how states administer elections, noting that the Constitution does not give the executive branch authority over voter eligibility or mail-in voting procedures. Talwani found that the states had legal standing to sue, given the burdens on election administration and credible threats of criminal prosecution under the order.
The Justice Department described the lawsuit as premature, arguing that federal agencies were still considering how to implement the directive and that the court acted hastily in blocking the order. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Talwani’s ruling on July 25, rejecting the administration’s claim that challengers lacked standing and warning that the executive order would cause confusion and potentially disenfranchise many voters if enforced.
The Supreme Court has shown reservations in prior cases involving mail-in voting restrictions. In a related ruling in late June, the court declined to block a Mississippi law allowing ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within five business days afterward, a decision upheld by both conservative and liberal justices. That ruling effectively preserved similar vote-by-mail provisions in multiple states, including battlegrounds such as Nevada and California.
President Trump has repeatedly criticized mail-in voting, asserting without evidence that it invites fraud, and has pressed Republicans in Congress to enact stricter voting laws, including voter ID requirements. After the Supreme Court’s recent decision, he described the outcome as a “tremendous loss” and urged legislative action to tighten mail-in ballot regulations.
As the Supreme Court has asked challengers to respond to the Justice Department’s request by August 3, the case sets up a high-profile confrontation over the limits of presidential authority in the administration of federal elections and the role of mail-in voting in the upcoming midterms.