A US federal appeals court has refused to allow the Trump administration to enforce key parts of President Donald Trump’s executive order tightening mail-in voting rules in 23 Democratic-led states, marking a significant legal setback ahead of this year’s US midterm elections.
In a 2-1 ruling on Saturday, the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a request by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pause a June decision that blocked several provisions of the executive order while the administration appeals the case.
The decision means the lower court’s injunction will remain in force, preventing the federal government from implementing the disputed measures in the affected states before the 3 November federal elections.
Court Cites Imminent Election Deadlines
The Trump administration argued that the lawsuit was filed too early because federal agencies had not yet completed the policies needed to implement the executive order.
However, the appeals court found that the plaintiff states were already facing imminent election deadlines and needed clarity as they prepared for the upcoming vote.
In its ruling, the majority said the executive order established “a clear set of rapidly approaching deadlines” requiring states to coordinate with federal agencies and adjust election procedures.
The judges agreed with the lower court that the states had little choice but to respond immediately rather than wait until implementation was complete.
Executive Order Targets Mail-In Voting
President Trump signed Executive Order 14399 in March as part of his administration’s election integrity agenda.
Among its provisions, the order directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to compile lists of confirmed US citizens eligible to vote and provide the information to individual states.
It also instructs the US Postal Service (USPS) to develop new standards for handling mail-in ballots and directs the Department of Justice to prioritise investigations into state and local election officials who issue federal ballots to individuals considered ineligible to vote.
The administration has argued the measures are intended to strengthen election security and improve the integrity of federal elections.
Democratic-Led States Challenge Presidential Authority
The legal challenge was filed by 23 states and the District of Columbia, led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington.
The states argue that the US Constitution gives them primary responsibility for administering federal elections and contend that President Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by directing federal agencies to impose new voting requirements on state election systems.
In June, US District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that several provisions of the executive order were likely to exceed presidential authority and issued an injunction blocking federal agencies from enforcing those sections of the order in the plaintiff states through the November elections.
Supreme Court Appeal Possible
Saturday’s decision does not determine the ultimate legality of the executive order but allows the lower court’s injunction to remain in place while the appeal continues.
The Department of Justice had previously indicated it could seek emergency relief from the US Supreme Court if the appeals court ruled against the administration, raising the possibility that the dispute could ultimately be decided by the nation’s highest court before the midterm elections.
The White House and the Department of Justice had not publicly responded to requests for comment following the appeals court’s decision.
