A federal appeals court on July 25 declined to permit U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to activate parts of a March executive order designed to alter how mail-in voting would be administered in 23 states and the District of Columbia ahead of the September and November elections.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s request to lift an injunction that a lower-court judge issued on June 25. That injunction had been won by a coalition of Democratic-led states after the judge concluded essential elements of the executive order were unconstitutional.
The Justice Department had asked the appeals court to pause U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani’s decision while it pursues an appeal. The department argued the case was premature because federal agencies had not yet finalized the steps needed to carry out the president’s directive. The 1st Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, rejected that contention.
In its opinion, the court emphasized the practical pressures the order imposes on states. "As the district court reasoned, the (executive order) lays out a clear set of rapidly approaching deadlines by which states must coordinate with federal officials and comply with new voting procedures - all while the states must also ensure that their officials and the public understand the evolving set of rules that would govern the upcoming September and November elections," the judges wrote. "The Plaintiff States have no practical choice but to respond to the (order) now."
How the order would have worked
The March executive order directed the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to assemble and send to states lists of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state. Those lists were to be compiled from citizenship and naturalization records along with other federal databases. The order further instructed the U.S. Postal Service to limit delivery of ballots to voters included on each state's approved mail-in ballot list.
As part of efforts to comply, the Postal Service issued proposed rules that would require states to provide names and barcodes associated with their mail-in ballots. The executive order also directed the Department of Justice to give priority to investigations and prosecutions of state and local election officials who issued federal ballots to people deemed "not eligible" to vote.
Lower-court findings and statutory limits
Judge Talwani, siding with a coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington state, found that the president lacked the authority to instruct DHS to create voter eligibility lists for the states' use. She also concluded that the Postal Service had no statutory authority to issue binding regulations governing mail-in voting.
Talwani additionally warned against the risk of intimidating local election officials. She held that the president could not use the executive order "to intimidate local election officials to use the necessarily incomplete confirmed citizenship lists as a resource, lest they face criminal prosecution."
Procedural posture and possible next steps
Prior to Talwani’s decision, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., had rejected a related Democratic effort to block the order on similar legal grounds. After the 1st Circuit’s refusal to lift the injunction, the Justice Department indicated it could seek relief from the U.S. Supreme Court if the appeals court did not rule in its favor.
The appeals court’s ruling leaves the injunction in place while the administration continues its legal challenge. The court underscored that the timing and the deadlines created by the executive order make the question anything but premature for states preparing for imminent elections.
Context and prior actions
President Trump signed the March executive order after repeatedly calling for tighter controls on voting by mail and asserting, without evidence, that his 2020 election loss resulted from widespread voter fraud. The directive was one of several moves by the administration to change election procedures; the president has also prioritized congressional approval of a package of voting restrictions known as the SAVE America Act.
Judges have previously blocked an earlier executive order that required proof of citizenship to register to vote and limited the counting of mail ballots. The current disputes over the March order focus on the authority of federal agencies to create and enforce the mechanisms the order prescribes, and on the practicality of requiring states to act under compressed timelines.
Implications
For states and local election officials, the ruling preserves the injunction that prevents the administration from pressing states to adopt the mandated procedures while litigation continues. For federal agencies such as DHS, the Postal Service and the Department of Justice, the decision reinforces judicial limits on their ability to implement the executive order’s mandates without clear statutory authorization or further legal resolution.
The appeals court placed particular weight on the operational reality that states must know which rules they will be required to follow as they prepare for near-term elections, making the legal dispute an immediate practical matter rather than a hypothetical future controversy.