A federal appeals court handed the Trump administration a legal setback Saturday, refusing to lift an injunction that blocks key provisions of the president's mail-in voting executive order in 23 Democratic-led states ahead of the November midterms.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against the Department of Justice's request to pause a June district court order that froze several provisions of Executive Order 14399, the president's sweeping directive aimed at tightening mail-in ballot procedures and verifying voter eligibility. The injunction remains in effect through the Nov. 3 federal elections, leaving the administration unable to enforce the order in any of the plaintiff states or the District of Columbia.
The ruling marks the second federal court to conclude that Trump likely exceeded his authority when he signed the order in March. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani reached that finding first, blocking implementation in June after 23 states, led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington, sued the administration, arguing the Constitution gives states primary responsibility for running federal elections.
The appeals court majority sided with the states on the central practical question: with election deadlines fast approaching, the plaintiff states could not afford to wait.
"The Plaintiff States have no practical choice but to respond to the (order) now."
That language, from the majority opinion, pointed to the "rapidly approaching deadlines" embedded in the executive order itself, deadlines that would have forced states to coordinate with federal agencies and adopt new voting procedures well before November.
Executive Order 14399, signed in March, directed three federal agencies to take specific actions. The Department of Homeland Security was ordered to compile lists of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote and provide those lists to states. The U.S. Postal Service was instructed to establish new standards for mail-in ballots. And the Justice Department was directed to prioritize criminal investigations into state and local election officials who issue federal ballots to people deemed ineligible to vote.
Breitbart reported that the order also directed USPS not to deliver mail-in ballots to individuals who did not appear on DHS's citizenship lists. The appeals court panel acknowledged the scope of the injunction, noting it "prevents the federal Defendants from enforcing the EO in the Plaintiff states' upcoming primary and general federal elections in September and November."
Judge Talwani found that Trump lacked the authority to order DHS to compile voter eligibility data and that USPS had no statutory authorization to adopt binding regulations on mail-in voting. The appeals court majority declined to disturb that reasoning, rejecting the administration's argument that the lawsuit was premature.
One judge dissented. The dissenting opinion's reasoning was not detailed in available reporting.
The legal fight did not unfold in isolation. Before the appeals court issued its decision, the Justice Department had already sent letters to all 50 states warning that election officials who knowingly allow ineligible voters to cast ballots could face criminal charges. That move, reported by the Washington Examiner, signaled the administration's intent to press its election integrity agenda through enforcement channels even as courts blocked the executive order's structural provisions.
Neither the White House nor the Justice Department immediately responded to requests for comment on the appeals court ruling.
But the DOJ had already tipped its hand on next steps. Before the 1st Circuit ruled, the administration told the court it could seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court if it did not prevail. Newsmax reported that DHS has indicated it may pursue that path, setting up a potential high-stakes showdown before the justices as the midterm calendar tightens.
The 23 plaintiff states and D.C. built their case on a straightforward constitutional argument: the Elections Clause gives states, not the president, primary authority over the administration of federal elections. They contended that Executive Order 14399 effectively federalized key parts of the voting process, from eligibility verification to ballot delivery, without congressional authorization.
The New York Post reported that the coalition was led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington. All 23 states in the lawsuit are Democratic-led, a fact that underscores the partisan fault line running through the dispute. No Republican-led state joined the challenge.
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, discussing the ruling in a Fox News video segment, argued that the court's decision impedes election integrity by allowing non-citizens to remain on voter rolls. He characterized the outcome as contrary to common sense.
Jordan's framing reflects a broader frustration among conservatives who view mail-in voting safeguards as essential to preventing fraud. The executive order's supporters see the DHS citizenship lists and USPS ballot standards as basic verification steps, the kind of measures that most voters, polls consistently show, consider reasonable regardless of party.
The practical effect of Saturday's ruling is clear: federal agencies cannot enforce the executive order's key provisions in nearly half the country through the midterm elections. States that sued will continue running their elections under existing procedures, without DHS-compiled eligibility lists and without new USPS ballot-delivery standards.
If the DOJ follows through on its stated intention to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court, the justices would face a compressed timeline. Midterm primaries in some states begin in September, and the general election falls on Nov. 3. Every week of litigation narrows the window for any order to take practical effect.
The case also raises a question the courts have not yet fully resolved: whether a president can direct executive agencies to impose new election procedures on states without an act of Congress. Judge Talwani concluded the answer is likely no. The 1st Circuit majority declined to reverse her. If the Supreme Court takes the case, its answer could reshape the boundaries of executive power over elections for years.
For now, 23 states have successfully blocked a sitting president from verifying who is eligible to vote in their jurisdictions, and they are calling it a victory for the Constitution. Voters who just want clean rolls and honest counts might call it something else.
