The lawsuits challenging Trump’s election executive orders have already produced one decisive loss for the administration and are now testing a second, broader order in federal court. Judges in Washington, D.C., have permanently struck down the core provisions of the March 2025 order that would have required documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form. A separate wave of litigation filed in April 2026 is now challenging a follow-up order that targets mail-in voting, with a Massachusetts federal judge actively weighing whether to block it before the November midterms.
The Two Orders Being Challenged
President Trump signed Executive Order 14248, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” on March 25, 2025. It directed the Election Assistance Commission to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship on the federal voter registration form, imposed similar requirements on military and overseas voters, threatened to withhold federal funds from states that count mail-in ballots received after Election Day, and sought to decertify voting systems.1Brennan Center for Justice. League of Women Voters v. Trump: March 2025 Elections Executive Order
A year later, on March 31, 2026, the president signed Executive Order 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” This one goes further. It directs the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Social Security Administration, to compile a “State Citizenship List” of confirmed citizens over 18 for each state, to be transmitted to election officials at least 60 days before each federal election. It also directs the U.S. Postal Service to issue rules requiring states to submit lists of eligible voters, and prohibits USPS from transmitting mail-in or absentee ballots to anyone not on that list. Every ballot envelope would carry the official Election Mail logo and a unique tracking barcode. The order further directs the Attorney General to prioritize investigations of state and local election officials who issue ballots to people deemed ineligible, authorizes withholding federal funds from noncompliant states, and extends voter record retention to five years.2White House. Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections3National Association of Counties. White House Issues Executive Order on Mail Ballot Procedures and Citizenship Verification
The 2025 Order Has Already Been Struck Down
The first order lost in court quickly, and the rulings now function as the legal backdrop for everything that followed.
On April 24, 2025, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction blocking the citizenship documentation requirement for voter registration. She held that the Constitution’s Elections Clause “entrusts Congress and the States — not the President — with the authority to regulate federal elections,” and noted that Congress had explicitly rejected a documentary citizenship amendment when it passed the National Voter Registration Act.4ACLU. Memorandum Opinion, LULAC v. Executive Office of the President, Case No. 25-0946
The court then made the ruling permanent. On October 31, 2025, Judge Kollar-Kotelly granted summary judgment and permanently blocked the voter registration citizenship requirement. On January 30, 2026, she permanently enjoined the same requirement as applied to military and overseas voters, ruling that it was “inconsistent with the constitutional separation of powers and cannot lawfully be implemented.”5Elias Law Group. Federal Court Permanently Blocks Additional Provisions of President Trump’s Executive Order on Elections6Campaign Legal Center. Victory: Anti-Voter Executive Order Halted by Court
Who Is Suing Over the 2026 Order
At least five lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Washington, D.C., and Massachusetts within days of the March 2026 order.7NPR. Trump Mail-in Voting Order
On April 3, 2026, a coalition of 23 state attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case, California v. Trump (Case No. 1:26-cv-11581), was assigned to Judge Indira Talwani and is co-led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, Washington, and Nevada. The coalition includes attorneys general from 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.8Massachusetts Attorney General. AG Campbell Sues Trump Administration Over Unlawful Executive Order9New Jersey Attorney General. AG Davenport Sues Trump Administration Over Unlawful Executive Order
One day earlier, on April 2, 2026, voting rights organizations filed League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump (Case No. 1:26-cv-11549) in the same 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 ACLU, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the Legal Defense Fund, among others.10ACLU. Voting Rights Groups Challenge Executive Order on Mail-in Ballots
Three more suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on April 3, 2026, and consolidated on April 9. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and allied Democratic organizations brought DSCC v. Trump. The NAACP, Common Cause, Black Voters Matter, and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed NAACP v. Trump (Case No. 26-cv-01151). LULAC filed its own challenge.11Democracy Docket. Trump Mail-in Voting Executive Order Challenge – DSCC12Democracy Docket. Trump Mail-in Voting Executive Order Challenge – NAACP
What the Plaintiffs Are Arguing
The core argument tracks what won in the 2025 litigation: the Constitution assigns election administration to Congress and the states, not the president, and no statute authorizes the executive branch to impose the order’s requirements. The state coalition contends the order illegally coerces states through threats of criminal prosecution and funding cuts.8Massachusetts Attorney General. AG Campbell Sues Trump Administration Over Unlawful Executive Order
Plaintiffs also challenge the reliability of the federal databases the order depends on. The states pointed to a review that found a 35 percent error rate in the SAVE verification system when used in Missouri. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the real question was “how many people who have the right to vote will have their vote suppressed based on its inaccuracies.”13California Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Co-Leads Lawsuit Challenging President Trump’s Executive Order
The voting rights organizations have focused on the Postal Service provisions, arguing the order unconstitutionally turns USPS into an arbiter of voter eligibility and overrides state mail-in voting laws. They warn that military members, overseas voters, the elderly, and voters with disabilities are the most likely to be shut out because federal eligibility records for those groups are often incomplete or outdated.14U.S. Vote Foundation. Lawsuit Challenge to 2026 Mail-in Ballot Executive Order
Civil rights plaintiffs argue the order would disproportionately exclude Black voters and other marginalized communities, and that the threat of criminal prosecution against groups assisting voters would chill civic engagement.15Common Cause. Civil Rights Groups Urge Court to Stop Trump Order on Mail-in Ballots
DHS itself acknowledged in an October 2025 privacy impact assessment that its SAVE program “may produce inaccurate results.” A group of U.S. Senators noted that SAVE lacks capacity for additional verification when checking Social Security numbers and has previously flagged U.S. citizens as non-citizens, leading to the removal of eligible voters. The system was designed to verify immigration status for benefits eligibility, not to function as a national citizenship database for elections.16U.S. Senate. Senate Letter to DHS Regarding EO 14399 Implementation
How the Administration Is Defending the Order
The Department of Justice has largely stayed off the merits and pressed a procedural defense: that the lawsuits are premature because agencies have not yet implemented the order. DOJ senior trial counsel Stephen Pezzi argued that a lawsuit could be brought “if and when the Executive Branch takes some action to implement the Executive Order,” and that agencies remained in a “deliberation phase.”17News from the States. Federal Agencies Haven’t Started Trump Order Restricting Voting by Mail, DOJ Says
The merits defense has come primarily from a coalition of 12 Republican-led states that intervened as defendants on April 30, 2026. Led by Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, the coalition includes Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas. They argue that “the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President” and that Congress cannot create agencies outside White House control. They describe the order as a voluntary federal-state partnership to verify voter rolls and secure absentee ballots, and call the opposing states’ claims “reckless attempts to shield inaccurate voter rolls.”18Missouri Attorney General. Missouri Attorney General Hanaway Leads Coalition to Defend Executive Order on Election Integrity
Where the Cases Stand Now
The first ruling on the 2026 order went to the administration. On May 28, 2026, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee in Washington, D.C., declined to issue a preliminary injunction, ruling that the challenge was premature because the administration had not yet implemented the directives. He wrote that “Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur.” The Democratic Party plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit on June 1, 2026.7NPR. Trump Mail-in Voting Order19Votebeat. Trump Executive Order Mail Ballots Midterm Elections
The timing worked against the administration’s prematurity defense almost immediately. The day after Judge Nichols ruled, on May 29, 2026, the Postal Service published its proposed regulations in the Federal Register, setting out the barcode requirements, envelope standards, and ballot participation list system the executive order contemplated. The proposed rule opened a 30-day public comment period ending July 2, 2026.20Votebeat. USPS Mail Ballot Rules Trump Executive Order21GovInfo. Ballot Mail for Federal Elections, Proposed Rule
On June 2, 2026, Judge Talwani in Massachusetts heard arguments on the state coalition’s motion for summary judgment. She expressed skepticism about the feasibility of the federal government producing an accurate citizenship list, asking, “What’s the harm if I say no one can use this list for the November election?” She also raised concern that the order’s prosecution provisions could cause “fear” among election officials and lead to widespread disenfranchisement. DOJ cited Judge Nichols’s ruling, but Judge Talwani noted that the USPS rulemaking had advanced since that decision. She did not rule from the bench, acknowledging that “time was of the essence.” Her decision remains pending as of mid-June 2026.22Reuters. Boston Judge to Weigh Blocking Trump’s Mail-in Voting Executive Order23Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. State of California v. Trump
The Deadlines Pressing Against the Litigation
Implementation dates are now colliding with the court calendar. The 90-day deadline for DHS to build infrastructure for compiling state citizenship lists fell on June 29, 2026, with no public confirmation as of mid-June that the agency has met it. The USPS comment period closes July 2, 2026, and a final rule is due within 120 days of the order’s signing, which falls in late July 2026. Primary elections are already underway in some states, and preparations for general election mail-in voting typically begin months before November.20Votebeat. USPS Mail Ballot Rules Trump Executive Order22Reuters. Boston Judge to Weigh Blocking Trump’s Mail-in Voting Executive Order
Judge Talwani’s pending ruling is the most consequential near-term decision. A ruling for the plaintiffs would block the citizenship list and USPS provisions before the midterms. A ruling the other way would let the order move forward, though renewed challenges would remain possible as agencies take further implementation steps, and the D.C. Circuit appeal of Judge Nichols’s decision is still ahead.