Appeals court upholds blocks on a Trump executive order that sought to curb voting by mail, a decision that reinforces state control of elections and warns the directive could create confusion for voters ahead of November.
In a 20-page decision, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the order “directs unprecedented levels of involvement by federal officials in how states administer elections.” The panel concluded that allowing it to take effect for the midterms would risk confusion and potential disenfranchisement of eligible voters, according to the ruling.
Appeals court upholds blocks on Trump order
The Constitution assigns authority over elections to states and Congress, not the executive branch. The ruling marks the latest setback to efforts by President Donald Trump to limit mail voting as Republicans work to defend narrow congressional majorities in a challenging political climate.
For years Trump has criticized mail voting, backing executive actions, lawsuits, and legislation to restrict it, even as he has used absentee voting himself. Courts have repeatedly halted many of those efforts. He has also continued to assert, without evidence, that mail ballots are prone to fraud, while noting that curbs on mail voting could help his party.
More than 20 Democratic attorneys general sued after Trump signed the executive order in March targeting mail voting. The directive instructed the Department of Homeland Security to assemble state-by-state lists of citizens to help determine voter eligibility, and directed the U.S. Postal Service to verify voters using data supplied by states.
In June, the Postal Service moved to align with the order by issuing a proposed rule reflecting many of its requirements.
Panel’s split views and next steps
Judges Gustavo A. Gelpí and Julie Rikelman, both appointed by President Joe Biden, affirmed a June district court ruling that struck down key parts of the directive as “unlawful, null and void.”
Judge Joshua D. Dunlap, a Trump appointee, concurred in part. In a separate opinion, he observed that the rules were not yet finalized, which can be a barrier to lawsuits, and called the case “unusual.” Still, he said the order posed a threat of “concrete injury” to lawful voting.
While reiterating that the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to control elections, the appeals court centered much of its analysis on whether states could sue before the order took effect. The states said they had already diverted resources in response. The federal government argued that this was premature.
An earlier federal judge in Washington declined in May to halt the order because it had not been implemented. A Massachusetts federal judge later blocked it as the administration began moving to enforce its terms. The appeals panel noted that the government’s own steps to carry out the order undercut arguments that the states acted too soon.
Government attorneys indicated in recent filings that they may seek Supreme Court review of the appeals court’s decision. For now, the ruling adds to a string of court decisions shaping how federal power is applied in politically sensitive cases, similar to how a U.S. judge sets Maduro trial date for June 1, 2027.
