Lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s election executive orders have produced a split record so far: the 2025 order’s proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration has been permanently struck down and is now on appeal in the D.C. Circuit, while the 2026 order restructuring mail-in voting survived its first preliminary challenge in Washington but faces a skeptical judge in Boston. With midterm primaries already running and the general election in November, several of the judges and parties involved expect the Supreme Court to weigh in before voters cast ballots.
The 2025 Executive Order and What It Tried to Do
On March 25, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” It directed the Election Assistance Commission to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, such as a passport, REAL ID-compliant document, or military identification, on the national mail voter registration form.1White House. Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections It ordered the EAC to decertify all previously certified voting machines within 180 days unless they met new standards, including voter-verifiable paper records and no use of barcodes or QR codes for vote counting.2Votebeat. Trump Executive Order Elections Mail Ballots Proof of Citizenship
It also sought to bar states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day, even if postmarked before it, in the eighteen states and the District of Columbia that then allowed the practice. It directed the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Government Efficiency to seek access to state voter files, and threatened to withhold federal funding from noncompliant states.3Brennan Center for Justice. The President’s Executive Order on Elections Explained
Election experts flagged practical problems immediately. No voting machines on the market met the proposed standards, replacement would cost millions and could not realistically happen within 180 days, and roughly half of Americans do not hold a passport.2Votebeat. Trump Executive Order Elections Mail Ballots Proof of Citizenship
Lawsuits Against the 2025 Order
The order was challenged within days. More than 20 state attorneys general, led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington, sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case, California v. Trump (No. 1:25-cv-10810), argued the order violated the separation of powers and intruded on the states’ constitutional authority to run elections.4Delaware Attorney General. California v. Trump Complaint5Nevada Secretary of State. Nevada Attorney General Joins Lawsuit Challenging Executive Order The states also challenged the order’s threatened criminal prosecution of election officials and the use of federal funds as a coercive lever.6New York Attorney General. Attorney General James Challenges Unconstitutional Executive Order Threatening Elections
U.S. District Judge Denise Casper granted a preliminary injunction blocking several key provisions, including the proof-of-citizenship requirement, the ballot-receipt deadline, and certain enforcement actions against states that count late-arriving mail ballots. She found the provisions would cause irreparable harm by forcing costly overhauls of state registration systems and keeping eligible voters who lack citizenship documents from registering.7Votebeat. Trump Executive Order on Elections Proof of Citizenship Injunction
A parallel case in the Western District of Washington, State of Washington v. Trump (No. 2:25-cv-00602-JHC), produced a January 2026 ruling blocking the proof-of-citizenship requirement on federal registration forms, the attempt to force new voting machine specifications, the override of state laws on counting mail ballots, and the threat to withhold federal funding. The court held those provisions violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.8Public Rights Project. State of Washington v. Trump Elections
Proof of Citizenship: Permanently Blocked, Now on Appeal
The most definitive ruling came in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President (No. 1:25-cv-00946). On October 31, 2025, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the District of Columbia permanently enjoined the proof-of-citizenship provision on summary judgment, holding that “the President lacks the authority to unilaterally alter election procedures—powers that rest with Congress and the states” and that the provision could not “be implemented in a manner consistent with the separation of powers.”9Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President10Advancing Justice AAJC. Court Strikes Down Key Part of Trump’s Unlawful Voting Executive Order Permanently
The Department of Justice appealed. On December 23, 2025, the federal government filed its appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (No. 25-05476), where it remains pending.9Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Executive Office of the President
The 2026 Executive Order and What Changed
On March 31, 2026, President Trump signed a second order, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections” (EO 14399). It went further than the first by creating a new federal infrastructure for controlling who receives a mail-in ballot.11White House. Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections
The order directed DHS, working with the Social Security Administration, to compile “State Citizenship Lists” drawn from federal naturalization records, SSA data, and other databases, to be sent to each state’s chief election official no fewer than 60 days before federal elections. DHS was given 90 days to build the infrastructure, a late-June 2026 deadline.11White House. Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections
It also ordered the Postmaster General to begin a rulemaking within 60 days to set new standards for mailing absentee and mail-in ballots. Under the proposed framework, the Postal Service would maintain participation lists of voters enrolled to receive mail-in ballots and would be barred from transmitting ballots to anyone not on those lists. The order again threatened to withhold federal funds from noncompliant states and directed the Attorney General to prioritize investigating officials who issue ballots to ineligible voters.12Lawfare. Trump Signs Executive Order Purporting to Restrict Mail-In Voting
Lawsuits Against the 2026 Order
Challenges came the next day. On April 1, 2026, the DSCC, DNC, DCCC, and Democratic Governors Association, joined by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, sued in the D.C. District Court. The lead case, DSCC v. Trump (No. 26-cv-01114), was consolidated with LULAC v. Executive Office of the President (No. 26-cv-01132) and NAACP v. Trump (No. 26-cv-01151).13Courthouse News Service. Nichols Rejects DNC PI in Election Overhaul EO Case
On April 3, 2026, 23 state attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania filed a separate suit in the District of Massachusetts, reprising the coalition that had challenged the 2025 order. They argued the new order was unlawful, violated the separation of powers, and infringed on state authority to run elections, singling out the national eligible voter list as an unprecedented federal takeover and the USPS ballot restrictions as an effort to control who can vote by mail.14New Jersey Attorney General. AG Davenport Sues Trump Administration Over Unlawful Executive Order15Minnesota Attorney General. Attorney General Ellison Files Lawsuit Challenging Executive Order on Elections
Two Judges, Two Signals
The cases have produced conflicting signals. On May 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in Washington declined to issue a preliminary injunction in the consolidated DSCC case. He ruled the challenge was premature: no infrastructure had been built, no citizenship lists existed, and the Postal Service had not yet acted. He found the plaintiffs could not show the imminent, concrete harm needed for emergency relief, but added that “Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur.”16Votebeat. Trump Executive Order Mail Ballots Midterm Elections Carl Nichols The plaintiffs appealed around June 1, 2026.17NPR. Trump Mail-In Voting Order
Days later, on June 2, 2026, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston heard arguments in the parallel state AG case, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump. Her tone was markedly different. She raised concerns about disenfranchising eligible voters, questioned whether the government could compile an accurate national citizenship list, and asked administration attorneys, “What’s the harm if I say no one can use this list for the November election?” She also flagged the risk that provisions directing the DOJ to investigate election officials could chill postal workers and local administrators. Talwani did not rule immediately but signaled a quick decision, saying she expected the case could reach the Supreme Court before the November midterms.18Reuters. Boston Judge to Weigh Blocking Trump’s Mail-In Voting Executive Order19Democracy Docket. Trump Order Targeting Mail Voting Leaves Judge Very Concerned
The USPS Rulemaking Moves in Parallel
While the courts weighed the 2026 order, the Postal Service began implementing the piece aimed at it. On May 29, 2026, USPS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register. States would have to provide lists of every registered voter being sent a mail-in or absentee ballot for federal general elections, along with unique Intelligent Mail barcodes tied to each voter’s outbound and return envelopes. A new “Federal Ballot Mail Portal” would compile the data, and USPS would be authorized to return any outbound ballot mailings not tied to a state-submitted list or that fail the new envelope standards.20Federal Register. Ballot Mail for Federal Elections21CNBC. Postal Service Mail-In Ballot Voter Lists Trump
The proposed rules would not apply to primary elections or to ballots sent to military and overseas voters. Public comments were due by July 2, 2026. The Postal Service said current practices for processing and delivering ballots would not change while the rulemaking is pending.22Votebeat. USPS Mail Ballot Rules Trump Executive Order
Related Cases That Are Not the Same Fight
Two other lawsuits often come up alongside these but address separate questions.
The first targeted Executive Order 14215, signed February 18, 2025, “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies.” That order dealt with presidential control of independent agencies generally, requiring executive branch employees to follow the legal interpretations of the President and the Attorney General, and bringing the Federal Election Commission under Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs review.23Federal Register. Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies On February 28, 2025, the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC sued in the D.C. District Court (DNC v. Trump, No. 25-587), arguing Section 7 effectively let the president dictate the FEC’s legal positions and stripped the bipartisan commission of its statutory independence.24FEC. DNC et al. v. Trump et al. On June 3, 2025, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali dismissed the case as “simply too speculative to justify emergency intervention,” noting the FEC had pledged to maintain its independence and received no White House directive to change its practices. He left the door open for future litigation.25Politico. Judge Tosses Democratic Party Challenge to Trump Order’s Impact on FEC
The second runs in the opposite direction. In April 2026, Louisiana sued the Election Assistance Commission after it denied the state’s request to modify state-specific instructions on the federal voter registration form to require additional proof of citizenship, such as a unique immigration number. Louisiana v. EAC grew out of a 2024 Louisiana law requiring proof of citizenship for state election registration. Louisiana argued the EAC exceeded its statutory authority and that the National Voter Registration Act was unconstitutional to the extent it limited state power to set voting qualifications.26Brennan Center for Justice. State of Louisiana v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission A coalition that includes the League of Women Voters and the NAACP Louisiana State Conference moved to intervene as defendants, arguing the proposed changes would violate the NVRA and disenfranchise eligible voters.27Southern Poverty Law Center. Motion to Intervene in Louisiana Lawsuit on Federal Voter Registration Form
Where Things Stand Heading Into the Midterms
The picture is unsettled on several fronts at once. The proof-of-citizenship requirement from the 2025 order is permanently blocked, but the government’s appeal is pending in the D.C. Circuit. The 2026 order’s mail-ballot provisions survived their first preliminary test before Judge Nichols, but that ruling is on appeal, and Judge Talwani in Boston could issue a conflicting ruling at any time. The USPS rulemaking on ballot mail standards is in its public comment period. The DHS deadline to build the citizenship-list infrastructure was June 29, 2026.
Separately, the DNC filed a FOIA suit (DNC v. DOJ, No. 1:26-cv-00825) in the D.C. District Court seeking records on the potential deployment of federal agents or military personnel to polling places and election offices during the 2026 midterms. Judge Beryl Howell ordered the government to expedite its searches and produce records on a rolling basis, citing the time-sensitive nature of the upcoming elections.28Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Democratic National Committee v. U.S. Department of Justice
With primaries already running in some states and the general election in November, the timeline for judicial resolution is tight. Judges and parties on both sides have said the Supreme Court will likely need to decide the main questions before voters go to the polls.