A federal judge has declined to temporarily block President Trump's executive order that calls for restricting voting by mail, delivering a significant legal victory for the administration while raising constitutional questions about presidential authority over elections.
The ruling released Thursday by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump nominee based in Washington, D.C., leaves in place an executive order on voting that tests the limits of presidential power under the Constitution. The decision comes as mail-in voting has already been taking place for state primaries in this year's midterm election.
The executive order, issued March 31, directs the Department of Homeland Security to work with the Social Security Administration to create lists of adult U.S. citizens in each state and send those lists to state election officials. The order also calls for the U.S. Postal Service to develop lists of eligible voters and to only deliver mail-in ballots to people on those lists.
In his ruling, Judge Nichols acknowledged the potential for future harm but determined that current circumstances do not warrant immediate intervention. He wrote that plaintiffs may renew their motions if specific individuals are affected by citizenship lists or if the Postal Service issues a final rule that directly impacts voters.
"The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws. Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted," Nichols wrote.
The legal battle is far from over. Another federal judge based in Boston is preparing to issue a ruling in the coming weeks for a similar set of lawsuits challenging the same executive order. A decision on requests to block provisions of the order may emerge from two Massachusetts-based lawsuits as soon as early June.
Since Trump signed the order, uncertainty has surrounded its implementation and potential impact on mail-in voting. In early May, the administration indicated in a court filing that federal agencies were still deliberating how to carry out the directive. Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche later told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that the Justice Department is working with other agencies to ensure the order's goals are implemented.
The executive order has sparked widespread legal opposition. Democrats, voting rights groups, and almost two dozen states, plus Washington, D.C., have filed five lawsuits challenging the directive. The legal challenges center on fundamental constitutional questions about the separation of powers.
Challengers argue that Article I of the Constitution gives state legislatures and Congress, not the president, the power to set rules for federal elections. Their lawsuits also contend that the order directs the U.S. Postal Service to make rules about election mail that would overstep the mailing agency's authority. The Postal Service is a federal agency that operates independently of the presidential administration.
President Trump, who himself voted by mail in Florida in March, has defended the order as necessary to prevent illegal voting by noncitizens in federal elections. However, reviews and research have consistently found such illegal voting to be incredibly rare.
The political stakes are considerable. While voters across the partisan divide rely on mail-in voting, more registered Democrats than Republicans reported voting by mail in the last national election in 2024. Any restrictions on mail-in voting could disproportionately affect certain voter demographics and potentially influence electoral outcomes.
The Thursday ruling addresses three lawsuits filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. As the legal proceedings continue, voters and election officials await clarity on whether and how the executive order will ultimately affect voting procedures in upcoming elections. The separate executive order on voting issued in 2025 was previously halted by courts, demonstrating that judicial oversight remains a critical check on presidential authority in election matters.
