Election Lawsuits This Month: Executive Order, DOJ Suits, State Cases

The busiest election litigation this month centers on President Donald Trump’s March 31, 2026 executive order directing federal control over mail-in ballots, with at least five lawsuits, a contested U.S. Postal Service rulemaking, and a D.C. Circuit appeal all moving on compressed timelines before the November midterms. The election lawsuits active this month also include a Justice Department campaign to pry voter-registration data out of 30 states, a long-running challenge to the Department of Homeland Security’s citizenship database, and a cluster of state fights in Georgia, California, Wisconsin, and New York.

The Executive Order Driving Most of the Litigation

Executive Order 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” does two things that states have gone to court over.¹ It directs DHS to compile citizenship lists for every state using naturalization records, Social Security data, and the SAVE database, and to send those lists to state election officials at least 60 days before a federal election. It also directs the Postmaster General to start a rulemaking that would require states to submit lists of voters eligible for mail-in or absentee ballots, with USPS refusing to deliver ballots to anyone not on those lists. States that fail to comply could lose federal funding, and the order instructs the Attorney General to prioritize prosecuting officials who issue ballots to ineligible voters.²

DHS had until June 29, 2026 to build the citizenship-list infrastructure; USPS had 60 days to open its rulemaking.¹

The 24-Jurisdiction Lawsuit in Boston

On April 3, 2026, attorneys general from 24 jurisdictions sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to strike the order down. The coalition is co-led by Massachusetts AG Andrea Joy Campbell, California AG Rob Bonta, Nevada AG Aaron Ford, and Washington AG Nick Brown, and includes attorneys general from Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, plus Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.³ Shapiro joined in his personal capacity as governor because Pennsylvania’s Republican attorney general, Dave Sunday, declined to sign on.⁴

The core argument is structural. Under the Elections Clause, states set the rules for federal elections and only Congress can override them, so the president has no independent authority to dictate how states manage voter rolls or deliver ballots. The complaint also alleges separation-of-powers violations in commandeering USPS, and in threatening states with criminal prosecution and funding cuts.⁵

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani held a hearing on the coalition’s motion for summary judgment on June 2, 2026. She questioned the feasibility of the DHS citizenship lists, flagged the risk that eligible voters would be wrongly excluded, and said the prosecution directive could intimidate officials into withholding ballots from legitimate voters.⁶ Talwani did not rule from the bench but said she was “aware time was of the essence” and acknowledged the case would likely reach the Supreme Court.⁷

The ACLU Companion Case

League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, filed by the ACLU, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and co-counsel for the League of Women Voters and the U.S. Vote Foundation, is pending in the same court. The plaintiffs raise six claims, including separation of powers, Tenth Amendment coercion, an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, a violation of Section 11(a) of the Voting Rights Act, and Privacy Act violations in the compilation of personal data.⁸ Their motion for a preliminary injunction was argued alongside the state coalition’s motion on June 2 and awaits ruling.⁶

The D.C. Case and Pending Appeal

A parallel suit by nonprofit groups and Democratic Party committees was filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. On May 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols declined to block the order, finding that because federal agencies had not yet taken concrete steps to carry it out, the plaintiffs could not show the immediate harm needed for an emergency injunction. Nichols left open the possibility of renewed motions once agencies acted.⁹

Agencies acted almost immediately. On May 29, USPS published a proposed rule implementing the order’s ballot-tracking requirements.¹⁰ On June 1, the D.C. plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.¹¹ No appellate ruling has issued as of mid-June 2026.

The USPS Rulemaking

The proposed rule appeared in the Federal Register on June 2 with a comment period ending July 2, 2026. It would amend the Domestic Mail Manual to require every ballot envelope to carry a uniquely serialized Intelligent Mail barcode with an embedded delivery-point ZIP code, pass a USPS design review, and display the official Election Mail logo. States would have to enroll each voter through a new federal portal before ballots could be mailed, and USPS would verify outbound mailings against the state-submitted lists and reject non-compliant mail.¹² Primary elections and military and overseas ballots are exempt. If finalized after July 2, states would have only a few months to redesign envelopes, build portal infrastructure, and submit voter lists before November mailings begin.¹⁰

DOJ Suits Against 30 States for Voter Rolls

A separate Justice Department campaign is demanding full, unredacted voter registration lists from every state, including names, dates of birth, driver’s license numbers, and partial Social Security numbers. DOJ cites the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, and has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C.¹³

As of late April 2026, courts had dismissed the suits against California, Michigan, Oregon, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, and DOJ settled with Oklahoma. DOJ has appealed the California, Michigan, and Oregon dismissals. Between 12 and 17 states have either turned over their lists or agreed to do so.¹⁴¹⁵ A Common Cause suit filed in April 2026 seeks to stop DOJ from pooling the collected data into the DHS SAVE system to build a national voter database.

League of Women Voters v. DHS

A class action filed in September 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleges that the administration has turned the SAVE system from a narrow immigration-verification tool into a national citizenship database, pooling Social Security numbers, tax records, medical information, and biometric data across federal agencies without the Privacy Act notices or privacy impact assessments the law requires. A preliminary injunction was denied in November 2025. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in January 2026 and moved for summary judgment in March 2026. The court is now weighing competing summary-judgment motions and motions to dismiss from DHS and from Texas, which intervened.¹⁶

State Election Cases Active This Month

Georgia Nonpartisan Elections Law

On June 3, 2026, metro Atlanta district attorneys sued in Fulton County Superior Court to block House Bill 369, signed by Governor Brian Kemp in May 2026. The law strips party labels from district attorney and other local races in Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett counties starting in 2028. Plaintiffs, including DeKalb DA Sherry Boston and Fulton DA Fani Willis, argue the law violates Georgia’s uniformity requirement, violates state and federal equal protection, and passed without the required two-thirds Senate vote after an earlier version had already failed.¹⁷¹⁸ All five counties have large Black voter populations and are currently served by Black Democratic women as district attorneys.

California Challenge to Shasta County’s Measure B

On June 12, 2026, California AG Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber sued in the state’s Third District Court of Appeal to invalidate Shasta County’s Measure B, approved by 55 percent of voters in June 2026. The measure would eliminate most mail-in voting, require photo ID for registration and voting, mandate hand-counting, and create a county voter registration system separate from the state’s. The state argues the measure exceeds county authority and is preempted by California law requiring uniform procedures across all 58 counties.¹⁹ About 90 percent of Shasta County voters used mail-in or drop-off ballots in the November 2025 special election.²⁰

Wisconsin Absentee Ballot Curing

The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin sued in Dane County in May 2026 to challenge the state’s absentee-ballot curing process. Curing is optional under current law, so individual municipal clerks decide whether to tell voters about missing information on ballot envelopes. The League argues this treats voters unequally depending on where they live and seeks a statewide requirement that clerks provide notice and a chance to fix errors before rejecting a ballot.²¹

Rockland County 2024 Recount

Unrelated to the 2026 executive order, the nonprofit SMART Legislation is pursuing a hand recount of 2024 presidential and U.S. Senate ballots in Rockland County, New York. The plaintiffs point to sworn affidavits from voters who say their votes for independent Senate candidate Diane Sare were not reflected in the certified count, and to statistical analysis showing that results in four of five towns were “highly unlikely” compared with 2020. In May 2025, New York Supreme Court Judge Rachel Tanguay ruled the allegations were sufficient for discovery. A compliance conference was scheduled for September 2025, and the case remains in discovery.²²

What to Watch Before November

The deciding question is whether a federal court will block the executive order before the midterms. No injunction has issued as of mid-June 2026. The D.C. case is on appeal, the Massachusetts case awaits Judge Talwani’s ruling, the USPS comment period closes July 2, and the June 29 DHS deadline for citizenship-list infrastructure is approaching with no public evidence the department has completed the work.⁹⁶ Judge Talwani said she expects the case to reach the Supreme Court.⁷

1
The White House. Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections
2
Bipartisan Policy Center. What’s in the New Executive Order on Elections
3
Massachusetts Attorney General. AG Campbell Sues Trump Administration Over Unlawful Executive Order Attempting to Exert Federal Control Over Elections
4
Votebeat. Donald Trump 2026 Midterm Election Executive Order State Lawsuit Mail Ballots Josh Shapiro
5
Massachusetts Attorney General. AG Campbell Moves to Permanently Block President Trump’s Executive Order Restricting Mail Voting
6
Reuters. Boston Judge to Weigh Blocking Trump’s Mail-In Voting Executive Order
7
Democracy Docket. Trump Order Targeting Mail Voting Leaves Judge Very Concerned
8
ACLU. League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump
9
Votebeat. Trump Executive Order Mail Ballots Midterm Elections Carl Nichols
10
Votebeat. USPS Mail Ballot Rules Trump Executive Order
11
Democracy Docket. Democrats Appeal Ruling That Left Trump’s Anti-Mail Voting Order in Place
12
Federal Register. USPS Proposed Rule: Mail-In and Absentee Ballot Standards
13
National Conference of State Legislatures. Federal Requests for Statewide Voter Lists
14
Brennan Center for Justice. Tracker: Justice Department Requests Voter Information
15
Washington State Standard. Months Later, DOJ Lawsuit to Obtain WA Voter Rolls Can Move Forward
16
Electronic Privacy Information Center. League of Women Voters v. DHS
17
Democracy Docket. Georgia Nonpartisan Elections Law Challenge
18
Atlanta Journal-Constitution. DAs Seek to Block Georgia Law Making Local Offices Nonpartisan
19
California Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta, Secretary of State Weber Sue Shasta County Over Measure B
20
The New York Times. California Lawsuit Mail Voting
21
Votebeat. Absentee Ballot Curing Lawsuit League Women Voters
22
Newsweek. 2024 Election Lawsuit Advances