A divided federal appeals court on Saturday dealt a significant setback to the Trump administration's efforts to enforce an executive order tightening mail-in voting rules in 23 Democratic-led states, a ruling that may now propel the case to the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the November midterm elections. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, denied the Department of Justice's request to pause a June ruling that blocked several provisions of President Donald Trump's March executive order while the administration pursues an appeal.
The lawsuit was brought by 23 states and the District of Columbia, led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington. These states argued that the Constitution grants them primary responsibility for administering federal elections and that President Trump exceeded his authority by directing federal agencies to impose new voting requirements. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani agreed in June, ruling that several provisions of the executive order likely exceeded presidential authority and blocking federal agencies from implementing them in the plaintiff states through the Nov. 3 federal elections.
The executive order, signed by Trump in March as part of his election integrity agenda, directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote and provide them to states. It also instructs the U.S. Postal Service to establish new standards for mail-in ballots and directs the Justice Department to prioritize investigations into state and local election officials who issue federal ballots to people deemed ineligible to vote. The administration argued that the lawsuit was premature because federal agencies had not yet finalized the policies needed to implement the order.
But the appeals court found that the plaintiff states were already facing looming election deadlines and had begun preparing for potential changes. In its majority opinion, the court wrote: "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. The Plaintiff States have no practical choice but to respond to the (order) now."
The 2-1 ruling does not resolve the underlying legal challenge to the executive order but leaves Judge Talwani's injunction in place while the appeal proceeds. The Department of Justice had previously informed the court that it could seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court if it did not prevail at the appeals court level. The White House and the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment following Saturday's decision.
This legal battle marks the latest chapter in an intensifying fight over federal and state authority in election administration. The 23 plaintiff states, all led by Democratic governors or attorneys general, argued that Trump's order would impose burdensome new requirements on election officials at a time when many states are already preparing for the upcoming midterm elections. They maintained that the order would undermine state-run election processes that have been in place for decades.
The case is closely watched as a test of presidential power over federal elections. Supporters of the executive order say it is necessary to prevent voter fraud and ensure that only eligible citizens cast ballots. Opponents argue that it is an overreach that could disenfranchise lawful voters and disrupt established election procedures. The ruling from the 1st Circuit leaves the door open for a potential Supreme Court appeal, which could have national implications for how elections are conducted in the United States.