A federal appeals court on Saturday denied the Trump administration's attempt to enforce new mail-in voting restrictions across 23 states, preserving a lower court injunction that found key provisions of the president's executive order unconstitutional just months before critical November congressional elections.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration's request in a 2-1 ruling, upholding U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani's June 25 decision that sided with a coalition of Democratic-led states. The ruling leaves states free to administer their own voting procedures without federal intervention as September primaries approach.
Constitutional Questions on Federal Authority
The appeals court emphasized the practical impossibility of compliance, noting Trump's order "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 judges concluded that "the Plaintiff States have no practical choice but to respond to the (order) now."
Trump signed the executive order in March after years of advocating for tighter rules on voting by mail and maintaining that his 2020 election defeat resulted from widespread voter fraud. The Constitution assigns states the role of administering federal elections, a fact central to the legal challenge mounted by California, Massachusetts, Nevada, Washington state and 19 other states plus the District of Columbia.
What the Order Required
The March directive instructed the Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit to states a list of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote, derived from citizenship and naturalization records and other federal databases. It required the Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters on each state's approved mail-in ballot list. USPS recently moved to implement Trump's directive by issuing new proposed rules requiring states to provide names and barcodes tied to their mail-in ballots.
The order also directed the Justice Department to prioritize investigation and prosecution of state and local election officials who issue federal ballots to people deemed "not eligible" to vote.
Administration's Defense
The Justice Department argued that because government agencies hadn't yet finalized actions and policies to implement Trump's directive, any lawsuit challenging it was premature. The department warned that absent a favorable ruling from the 1st Circuit, it may be forced to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Before Talwani ruled, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., rejected a related effort by Democrats to block Trump's order on similar grounds.
Talwani, appointed by President Barack Obama, concluded that Trump lacked authority to direct DHS to compile voter eligibility lists for each state and that USPS had no statutory authorization to adopt binding regulations on mail-in voting. She said Trump couldn't attempt through his order "to intimidate local election officials to use the necessarily incomplete confirmed citizenship lists as a resource, lest they face criminal prosecution."
The order came alongside other Trump administration efforts to overhaul elections. He's made winning approval in Congress of a package of voting restrictions called the SAVE America Act a priority. Judges have blocked an earlier executive order requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and restricting the counting of mail ballots.
Why This Matters:
The ruling preserves the constitutional framework that assigns election administration to states rather than federal agencies, but it also highlights fundamental tensions over voting security and federal oversight authority. With congressional control at stake in November, the decision ensures states won't face last-minute procedural changes that could disrupt voter access or create confusion at polling places. The Justice Department's warning about potential Supreme Court intervention suggests this legal battle isn't finished. The case tests whether federal agencies can impose election procedures on states through executive action or whether such changes require congressional legislation. For voters in 23 states, the immediate impact is clear: existing mail-in voting procedures remain in place through the fall elections.