A federal appeals court ruled Saturday that the Trump administration cannot force 23 states to comply with an executive order that would've dramatically restricted mail-in voting just months before November's congressional elections. The decision protects voting access for millions of Americans who rely on mail ballots.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration's emergency request to overturn a lower court injunction, ruling 2-1 that key provisions of President Donald Trump's March executive order were unconstitutional. Several Democratic-led states secured that initial injunction on June 25 from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who found Trump had overstepped his authority.
States Faced Impossible Deadlines
The appeals judges emphasized the chaos Trump's order would've created. They wrote that it "lays out a clear set of rapidly approaching deadlines by which states must coordinate with federal officials and comply with new voting procedures — all while the states must also ensure that their officials and the public understand the evolving set of rules that would govern the upcoming September and November elections." The court added bluntly: "The Plaintiff States have no practical choice but to respond to the (order) now."
That's precisely the problem. States administer elections under the Constitution, and Trump's directive would've upended established procedures with minimal time to implement sweeping changes. The order came after years of Trump pushing the false claim that his 2020 election defeat resulted from widespread voter fraud — a claim repeatedly rejected by courts and election officials across the country.
What the Order Would've Done
Trump's March order directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile voter eligibility lists from federal citizenship databases and transmit them to states. It required the U.S. Postal Service to only deliver ballots to voters on each state's approved mail-in ballot list. USPS recently moved to implement the directive by proposing new rules requiring states to provide names and barcodes tied to their mail-in ballots.
Most troubling to civil rights advocates: the order directed the Justice Department to prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local election officials who issue federal ballots to people deemed "not eligible" to vote. That provision, Judge Talwani wrote, amounted to an attempt "to intimidate local election officials to use the necessarily incomplete confirmed citizenship lists as a resource, lest they face criminal prosecution."
Constitutional Overreach
Talwani, appointed by President Barack Obama, ruled that Trump lacked authority to direct DHS to compile voter eligibility lists for states and that USPS had no statutory authorization to adopt binding regulations on mail-in voting. The 23-state coalition was led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington state, along with the District of Columbia.
The Justice Department argued the lawsuit was premature because agencies hadn't yet finalized implementation policies. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., had rejected a related Democratic effort to block the order on similar grounds. The Justice Department warned it may ask the Supreme Court to intervene if the 1st Circuit didn't rule in its favor.
This order represents just one piece of Trump's broader push to restrict voting access. He's made winning congressional approval of the divisive SAVE America Act a priority. Judges have already blocked an earlier executive order requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and restricting the counting of mail ballots.
Why This Matters:
Mail-in voting has become essential infrastructure for American democracy, particularly for elderly voters, people with disabilities, rural residents, and working families who can't easily reach polling places on Election Day. Trump's order would've created confusion and barriers right before crucial congressional elections that will determine the balance of power in Washington. The threat of federal prosecution against local election officials — who work long hours for modest pay to ensure every eligible voter can participate — could've driven experienced administrators from their posts. Judge Talwani recognized that federal citizenship databases are "necessarily incomplete," meaning eligible citizens could've been wrongly purged from voter rolls. The appeals court's decision affirms that states retain constitutional authority over election administration and that voting access can't be restricted through executive fiat without clear congressional authorization. With the Supreme Court potentially the next stop, the fundamental question remains: will voting become easier or harder for ordinary Americans?