A U.S. district judge on Thursday declined to issue a preliminary injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order that tightens rules around mail-in voting, a setback for Democratic plaintiffs who argued the measure could prevent millions of voters from casting ballots.
The order, signed on March 31, directs federal agencies to assemble lists of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state and to draw on federal data to assist state election officials in verifying voter eligibility. It further instructs the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters appearing on each state’s approved mail-in ballot list, and it requires states to retain election-related records for five years.
Democratic leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, sought a preliminary injunction in Washington federal court, arguing the order intrudes on states’ constitutional authority to set election rules. The plaintiffs warned that reliance on Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records to produce so-called "state citizenship lists" could improperly exclude lawfully registered voters because those federal data sources may be out of date or contain errors.
Representing the administration, the Justice Department told the court the litigation was premature because the executive order has not yet been implemented by federal agencies. During oral arguments on May 14, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols at times appeared receptive to the Justice Department’s contention that injunction relief was unwarranted before agencies act on the directive.
The legal dispute unfolds as Republicans, including the president, campaign to retain control of both chambers of Congress in the November midterm elections. President Trump has repeatedly criticized voting by mail and has asserted - without evidence - that his 2020 election loss stemmed from widespread voter fraud.
Alongside the Washington suit, a coalition of Democratic-led states has filed a similar challenge in federal court in Boston. That parallel litigation underscores continued legal uncertainty about how — or whether — the executive order will be carried out and the potential for differing judicial outcomes in separate federal venues.
Context and procedural posture
The judge’s refusal to grant a preliminary injunction does not resolve the underlying legal questions about federal authority, the accuracy of federal datasets for voter verification, or states’ rights to administer elections. Instead, it leaves the executive order in place for now while litigation proceeds and while agencies have yet to act on the order’s directives.
Next steps
Litigation remains ongoing in multiple courts. The administration’s implementation timeline and the federal agencies’ decisions about whether and how to use the specified data sources will be central to any further judicial rulings.