On April 3, 2026, twenty-four states sued the Trump administration over an election executive order, asking a federal court in Massachusetts to block a directive that would let the U.S. Postal Service restrict mail ballot delivery and require the Department of Homeland Security to build a federal list of eligible voters for the states to use. The case, California v. Trump, was assigned to U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani and targets an order President Donald Trump signed on March 31, 2026.1Clearinghouse.net. State of California v. Trump2Nevada Secretary of State. Secretary of State Aguilar and Attorney General Ford Announce Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
What the March 2026 Order Would Do
The order, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to compile a “State Citizenship List” of confirmed U.S. citizens over 18 and send that list to state election officials at least 60 days before a federal election. It also directs the Postmaster General to open a rulemaking so that the Postal Service would deliver mail-in or absentee ballots only to individuals on a state-specific approved participation list.3White House. Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections States and officials who fail to comply face the threat of criminal prosecution and loss of federal funding.
It is the second executive order in a year to try to reshape federal election procedures. An earlier order signed on March 25, 2025, took a different route, directing the Election Assistance Commission to add a documentary proof-of-citizenship requirement to the national mail voter registration form and to condition federal funding on states adopting an Election Day receipt deadline for mail ballots.4White House. Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections
Who Is Suing
The coalition is led by the attorneys general of California (Rob Bonta), Massachusetts (Andrea Joy Campbell), Nevada (Aaron Ford), and Washington (Nick Brown), joined by Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar. The other members are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro joined in his capacity as governor.5Votebeat. Donald Trump 2026 Midterm Election Executive Order State Lawsuit6New Jersey Attorney General. AG Davenport Sues Trump Administration Over Unlawful Executive Order
A coalition of twelve Republican-led states, including Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas, moved on April 21, 2026, to intervene on the administration’s side.7Clearinghouse.net. League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump
The Legal Arguments
The heart of the complaint is a separation-of-powers claim. The states argue that the Constitution’s Elections Clause assigns authority over federal election procedures to state legislatures and Congress, not the president. Deploying the Postal Service, an entity under congressional authority, to police mail ballot delivery amounts to unlawful commandeering. The coalition also invokes the Tenth Amendment, contending that the order coerces states into abandoning their own election procedures by threatening federal funds and prosecution.8Washington Attorney General. AG Brown Sues to Block Executive Order That Undermines Voting Rights
Beyond the constitutional questions, the states argue the order would disrupt an election year already underway. Massachusetts Attorney General Campbell said more than 61 percent of Massachusetts voters used mail-in ballots in the 2024 state primary and that forcing an overhaul weeks before primaries would produce “confusion, chaos, and distrust.” The coalition also questioned the reliability of the federal SAVE database on which the order relies, citing a Missouri county review that found incorrect results for 35 percent of individuals checked.9Massachusetts Attorney General. AG Campbell Sues Trump Administration Over Unlawful Executive Order
Nevada Attorney General Ford called the order an “illegal intrusion upon the sovereignty of the Silver State” and warned it could create a “shadow voter eligibility list” that would coerce states into disenfranchising eligible citizens omitted from federal databases.10Nevada Attorney General. Attorney General Ford, Secretary of State Aguilar Announce Lawsuit11Nevada Current. State Officials’ Message to Trump: Hands Off Nevada’s Mail Ballots
How the Administration Is Defending the Order
The administration has argued that plaintiffs lack standing and that the challenges are not ripe because agencies have not yet begun implementing the order. In a related D.C. case, administration counsel Stephen Pezzi argued the alleged harms were “subjective” and that no one faced actual risk of prosecution for violating the order. At a Boston hearing, Missouri Solicitor General Lou Capozzi, appearing for the intervening states, urged the judge not to let the process be “strangled in the crib,” while acknowledging his state was “not exactly sure how we would use it.”12ABC News. Federal Court Hears Arguments Over Efforts to Halt Trump’s Mail-In Executive Order On the merits, the administration claims broad executive authority to protect election integrity.
What Courts Already Ruled on the 2025 Order
The 24-state suit lands in a legal landscape where courts have already rejected core parts of the earlier 2025 order.
In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction blocking the EAC from requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration.13Advancing Justice-AAJC. Court Strikes Down Key Part of Trump’s Unlawful Voting Executive Order On October 31, 2025, she made it permanent, granting summary judgment and ruling that “the President lacks the authority to unilaterally alter election procedures — powers that rest with Congress and the states.”14ACLU. League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump The Department of Justice appealed on December 23, 2025.15League of Women Voters. League of Women Voters Education Fund v. Trump (Now LULAC v. Executive Office of the President)
On January 9, 2026, U.S. District Judge John H. Chun in Washington state issued a 75-page ruling in State of Washington v. Trump, permanently blocking the administration from enforcing the 2025 order’s citizenship-proof and ballot-receipt-deadline provisions. Judge Chun wrote that the president “lacks the authority to unilaterally order such changes” because the Constitution assigns no role to the president in federal election administration.16Oregon Capital Chronicle. Federal Judge Blocks Trump Election Order, Siding With Oregon, Washington
On January 30, 2026, Judge Kollar-Kotelly permanently blocked two additional provisions of the 2025 order in a 110-page opinion. Section 2(d) had sought to require federal agencies administering public assistance programs to verify citizenship before providing voter registration forms, and Section 3(d) had tried to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements on the Federal Post Card Application used by military servicemembers and overseas citizens. The court found both provisions conflicted with the National Voter Registration Act, which requires only that an applicant attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury.17Courthouse News Service. Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s New Voter Registration Requirements18Elias Law Group. Federal Court Permanently Blocks Additional Provisions of President Trump’s Executive Order on Elections
Parallel Cases Against the 2026 Order
Two other lawsuits target the March 2026 order alongside the state coalition suit.
On April 2, 2026, voting rights organizations filed League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump in the same Boston federal court, also before Judge Talwani. Plaintiffs include the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the national League of Women Voters, the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, the U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, represented by the Brennan Center, ACLU, Legal Defense Fund, and other counsel.19ACLU. League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump The complaint raises six claims, including separation of powers, unlawful commandeering of the Postal Service, Tenth Amendment violations, unconstitutional burdens on voting, Voting Rights Act violations, and Privacy Act violations.7Clearinghouse.net. League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on April 23, 2026.20Brennan Center for Justice. League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump
A third case, DSCC v. Trump, was filed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on April 1, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On May 28, 2026, Judge Carl Nichols declined to issue a preliminary injunction, ruling the challenge was not yet ripe because the Postal Service, DHS, and Social Security Administration had not yet taken concrete steps to implement the order. The day after the ruling, the Postal Service issued a proposed rule to carry out the order’s mandates, and the plaintiffs filed an appeal on June 1, 2026.21Jurist. Democrats Appeal Decision to Leave Trump’s Mail-In Voting Order in Place
Where Things Stand
Three provisions of the 2025 executive order are permanently enjoined, and the Department of Justice has appealed at least one of those rulings. The 2026 order is under active challenge in Boston and Washington, D.C. In Boston, Judge Talwani has taken the motions to halt the order and the administration’s motions to dismiss under advisement.12ABC News. Federal Court Hears Arguments Over Efforts to Halt Trump’s Mail-In Executive Order In D.C., the denial of a preliminary injunction is on appeal after the Postal Service began moving toward implementation.21Jurist. Democrats Appeal Decision to Leave Trump’s Mail-In Voting Order in Place With the 2026 midterms approaching, the timing of any ruling will shape how mail ballots are handled for millions of voters.