Federal courts have blocked the central provisions of President Donald Trump’s elections executive orders in a series of lawsuits filed since March 2025. A permanent injunction now bars enforcement of the March 2025 order’s requirement that voters provide documentary proof of citizenship on the federal registration form, and a separate wave of litigation challenging a March 2026 order on mail-in voting and voter data collection is moving through federal courts as of mid-2026. This is where each of the Trump elections executive order lawsuits stands.
What the March 2025 Order Did
On March 25, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14248, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.”1White House. Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections The order directed the Election Assistance Commission to add a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement — passport, military ID, or REAL ID-compliant identification — to the national mail voter registration form within 30 days. It told the EAC to withhold federal funding from states that did not comply or that counted mail-in ballots received after Election Day.2Brennan Center for Justice. League of Women Voters v. Trump (March 2025 Elections Executive Order)
The order also opened federal citizenship databases at DHS and the State Department to state election officials, directed the Attorney General to enforce a uniform Election Day ballot-receipt deadline, and instructed the EAC to rewrite voting system guidelines to require voter-verifiable paper records and prohibit barcodes or QR codes on ballots.1White House. Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections
Who Sued Over the 2025 Order
Three suits landed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia within a week. The Democratic National Committee, joined by the Democratic Governors Association, Democratic congressional campaign committees, and congressional Democratic leaders, filed on March 31, 2025, arguing the order violated the separation of powers and the National Voter Registration Act.3Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Democratic National Committee v. Trump4ACLU. League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump5Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly consolidated the three cases on April 3, 2025, under LULAC v. Executive Office of the President.6CourtListener. Democratic National Committee v. Trump The Republican National Committee intervened in June 2025 and filed cross-motions for summary judgment defending the order.7Democracy Docket. Washington, D.C. Trump Election Integrity Executive Order Challenge
The plaintiffs’ core argument was that the Constitution’s Elections Clause assigns authority over federal elections to Congress and state legislatures rather than the president, and that the citizenship-documentation mandate conflicted with the NVRA, under which applicants affirm citizenship under penalty of perjury.8Brennan Center for Justice. The President’s Executive Order on Elections, Explained The administration argued the president held authority to protect election integrity and that self-attestation was insufficient to prevent noncitizen voting.1White House. Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections
How the Court Ruled
Judge Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction on April 24, 2025, blocking the EAC from implementing the citizenship documentation requirement while the case proceeded.9NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Court Blocks Documentary Proof of Citizenship Provision in Voting Executive Order On October 31, 2025, she granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, permanently barring the EAC from enforcing the proof-of-citizenship mandate. The court held that the Elections Clause gives Congress, not the president, the power to check state authority over federal elections, and that the president lacked authority to unilaterally rewrite the federal voter registration form.10Constitutional Accountability Center. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President
A follow-up ruling on January 30, 2026, extended the permanent injunction to additional provisions, including the requirements that federal agencies verify citizenship before offering voter registration assistance and that overseas and military voters provide proof of citizenship.11Voting Rights Lab. Trump Elections Order Loses Again in Court The EAC never adopted the citizenship documentation requirement.12Voting Rights Lab. The EAC Should Safeguard Elections, Not Control Them
The Department of Justice appealed to the D.C. Circuit in December 2025, and the RNC filed its own appeal in March 2026. The government has moved for summary reversal and the plaintiffs for summary affirmance. As of June 2026, no oral argument date has been set.13CourtListener. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President
The March 2026 Order and the States’ Lawsuit
On March 31, 2026, President Trump signed a second elections order, Executive Order 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” It directed DHS and the Social Security Administration to compile a “State Citizenship List” of all residents confirmed to be U.S. citizens and to transmit that list to state election officials at least 60 days before each federal election.14American Presidency Project. Executive Order 14399 — Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections
The order also instructed the U.S. Postal Service to adopt rules requiring it to transmit mail-in ballots only for individuals appearing on state-provided participation lists. States that failed to comply faced potential loss of federal funding, and the Attorney General was directed to prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local officials who issued ballots to ineligible voters.14American Presidency Project. Executive Order 14399 — Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections
On April 3, 2026, a coalition of 23 attorneys general, the District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit was co-led by the attorneys general of Washington, Massachusetts, California, and Nevada.15Washington Attorney General. AG Brown Sues to Block Executive Order That Undermines Voting Rights Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said “the President cannot direct or control our state voting laws.”16Michigan Advance. Michigan Elected Officials Vow to Fight Trump’s Executive Order Targeting Mail-in Ballots The states argued that neither the Constitution nor Congress authorized the president to create a national voter eligibility list, direct the Postal Service to gatekeep mail ballots, or threaten state officials with criminal prosecution for administering elections under state law.17California Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Co-Leads Lawsuit Challenging President Trump’s Executive Order
Voting rights organizations and Democratic Party groups filed separate lawsuits in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.18Votebeat. States Sue Trump Over Executive Order Targeting Mail Ballots On June 18, 2026, a Massachusetts federal court denied part of the government’s motion to dismiss League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, letting the case proceed with respect to the 2026 midterms. The court has not yet ruled on the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction blocking the Postal Service from implementing the mail ballot restrictions.19ACLU. Federal Court Allows Challenge to Executive Order Restricting Mail-in Voting to Proceed
The DOJ Voter-Data Lawsuits
Alongside the executive orders, the Department of Justice launched a nationwide push to obtain unredacted voter registration databases. At least 48 states and Washington, D.C., received requests for full voter rolls, including driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers, so the DOJ could cross-reference them against the DHS SAVE database for potential noncitizens.20Brennan Center for Justice. Tracker: Justice Department Requests for Voter Information
Fifteen states, including Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Ohio, provided or agreed to provide the data. The DOJ sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., to compel the rest. Courts in six states — Michigan, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Arizona — dismissed those suits. As of mid-2026, no judge has ruled in favor of the DOJ’s requests, and the department has appealed dismissals in California, Michigan, and Oregon.20Brennan Center for Justice. Tracker: Justice Department Requests for Voter Information21Capitol News Illinois. DOJ Seeking Illinois Voter Data to Purge Suspected Noncitizens, Documents Suggest
Internal DOJ documents filed in federal court showed that a senior official in the Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section instructed staff to conceal the agency’s intended use of the data, telling them to say only that the information would be used “in a manner consistent with Federal law” and “say nothing more.”21Capitol News Illinois. DOJ Seeking Illinois Voter Data to Purge Suspected Noncitizens, Documents Suggest
On April 21, 2026, Common Cause and several individual voters filed Common Cause v. DOJ in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking the court to halt the data collection, order deletion of information already obtained, and prevent the DOJ from sharing voter data with other agencies or private contractors.22Votebeat. Voting Rights Groups Sue DOJ Over State Voter Roll Requests The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on May 19, 2026. No ruling had been issued as of late May 2026.23ACLU of D.C. Common Cause v. DOJ
Watson v. RNC at the Supreme Court
One legal question underlying the executive orders is separately pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. Watson v. Republican National Committee asks whether federal law preempts state rules that count mail-in ballots received after Election Day. The case arose from a Mississippi law allowing receipt up to five business days after Election Day; the Fifth Circuit ruled for the RNC and Mississippi Republican Party, holding the state law preempted by federal Election Day statutes.24Cornell Law Institute. Watson v. Republican National Committee
Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson appealed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in November 2025 and heard oral argument on March 23, 2026. The Trump administration filed an amicus brief supporting the RNC. A decision was pending as of mid-2026 and could affect how many states administer mail voting.25Supreme Court of the United States. Oral Argument Transcript, Watson v. RNC
The SAVE Act as a Legislative Alternative
Congress has moved in parallel with a bill that would accomplish by statute much of what the executive order was blocked from doing. The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act would amend the National Voter Registration Act to require documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration and a photo ID indicating citizenship at the polls. The House passed the bill on February 11, 2026, and the Senate began debating the House-approved version on March 17, 2026.26National Conference of State Legislatures. 9 Things to Know About the Proposed SAVE America Act
The bill would take effect immediately upon passage, with no phase-in period and no federal funding for implementation. It would create criminal penalties for election officials who register applicants without proper documentation and a private right of action for individuals to sue over noncompliance. A study of Kansas’s earlier documentary-citizenship requirement found roughly 12 percent of registration applicants — about 31,000 eligible citizens — were blocked from registering.27Bipartisan Policy Center. Five Things to Know About the SAVE Act If enacted, the SAVE Act would face its own constitutional challenges.