Trump Fails to Ditch Elections Order Lawsuits Ahead of Midterms

Challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting can proceed ahead of the November elections, a federal judge ruled.

The executive order requires certain actions be taken before the midterms, now less than five months away, Judge Indira Talwani of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts said Thursday. And given the dozens of primary elections occurring throughout that period, postponing judicial review “is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs.”

But Talwani dismissed without prejudice claims regarding the implementation of the executive order for elections after Nov. 3.

Although there are uncertainties as to how agencies will implement the executive order, it could result in a dynamic process in which states and voting rights groups could participate in a comment period to have their concerns incorporated in any agency decision making. Withholding judicial review of the order “as it relates to distant elections will pose little hardship where there will be sufficient time to legal challenges to the EO after implementation,” Talwani said.

Trump’s March order directs US Citizenship and Immigration Services to coordinate with the Social Security Administration to develop a list of eligible voters in each state, compiled from citizenship, Social Security, and other federal databases. The order also directs the US Postal Service to initiate proposed rulemaking related to mail voting and include a requirement that no ballot be sent to an individual unless they’re “enrolled” with USPS.

Several nonprofits that do voter education, including the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, alleged the order violates the separation of powers, their members’ right to vote, and the Voting Rights Act. Twenty-three states and Washington separately sued, asserting violations of their constitutional rights to administer elections.

The organizations and states presented “unrebutted evidentiary support” for their claims that significant preparation is required to facilitate elections, Talwani said, rejecting the federal government’s ripeness argument. The plaintiffs can’t wait for final implementation since they’re required to take action now.

The government also admitted that compiling a list of confirmed voters would be underinclusive to comply with federal privacy law, and given feasibility issues such as when the federal government is unaware of name or address changes. The executive order directs agencies to prepare and send to states a list of citizens “that will necessarily be incomplete,” Talwani said.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Brennan Center for Justice represent the voting groups.

The cases are League of Women Voters of Mass. v. Trump, D. Mass., No. 1:26-cv-11549, 6/18/26 and California v. Trump, D. Mass., No. 1:26-cv-11581, 6/18/26.