A federal appeals court declined to allow the Trump administration to implement an executive order imposing stricter mail-in voting regulations in 23 states ahead of the November congressional elections. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, in a 2-1 decision on July 25, upheld an injunction issued by a lower court that found key elements of the order unconstitutional.
The challenge to the order came from a coalition of Democratic-led states, including California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. These states argued that the order overstepped federal authority and interfered with state control over elections, which the U.S. Constitution assigns primarily to the states.
The administration had sought a stay of U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s ruling while it pursued an appeal. The Department of Justice argued that lawsuits against the order were premature, as federal agencies had not yet finalized plans for implementing the directive. However, the appeals court disagreed, noting the order imposed near-term deadlines requiring states to coordinate with federal officials on new voting procedures for upcoming September and November elections. The court emphasized that the states had no practical choice but to respond immediately to the order.
The March executive order, signed by President Donald Trump, directed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to compile lists of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote, drawn from citizenship, naturalization records, and other federal databases. It also instructed the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to deliver ballots only to voters on state-approved mail-in ballot lists. The order further directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local election officials who issue federal ballots to individuals deemed ineligible.
Judge Talwani, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, ruled that the president lacked the authority to compel DHS to compile voter eligibility lists for state use. She also determined that the USPS had no statutory authority to issue binding mail-in voting regulations. The judge rejected the administration’s attempt to pressure local election officials to rely on incomplete federal citizenship lists under threat of criminal prosecution.
The Trump administration has previously faced setbacks in court regarding voting regulations. Earlier judicial rulings blocked a separate executive order requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and restricting the counting of mail ballots.
The administration has also sought congressional approval for the SAVE America Act, a controversial legislative package aimed at overhauling voting rules. President Trump, who has repeatedly alleged—without evidence—that widespread mail-in voter fraud cost him the 2020 election, has prioritized tightening mail-in voting rules in efforts leading into the 2026 midterm elections.
The Department of Justice has indicated it may seek Supreme Court intervention if the appeals court judgment is not overturned. Meanwhile, USPS is moving forward with proposed rules that would require states to submit names and barcodes linked to mail-in ballots in compliance with the executive order directives.