Voter List Order Halted
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Election Order Citing Violation of Powers
A federal judge has blocked key parts of President Trump's executive order seeking to build a national voter list and restrict mail ballot delivery, Associated Press reported on June 25, 2026. Judge Indira Talwani ruled that the order's provisions "unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers" — handing the White House its second straight legal defeat on election oversight in as many days.
The ruling applies to the 2026 midterm election cycle. It means states keep full control of their voter rolls, and the U.S. Postal Service must continue delivering ballots without requiring federal sign-off. A coalition of 23 states and Washington, D.C. — representing more than 150 million Americans — brought the lawsuit, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
What Trump's Executive Order Actually Required
Trump signed Executive Order 14399 on March 31, 2026. It directed the Department of Homeland Security to create a national voter eligibility list using the SAVE database — a federal system that checks immigration status. States had 60 days before an election to hand over voter data, according to the Institute for Responsive Government. States that refused faced the loss of federal funding.
The order also gave the USPS new power: it could refuse to deliver mail ballots for any state that did not comply. Postmaster General David Steiner defended the plan in Senate testimony on June 24, saying it would "match the ballots a state believes they're sending out to what actually gets sent out," Maryland Daily Record reported. In 2024, roughly one-third of all voters cast ballots by mail.
Back-to-Back Court Defeats for the White House
Judge Talwani's ruling came just one day after a separate federal judge, Denise Casper, permanently blocked Trump's earlier March 2025 election order. That order had required proof of citizenship to register to vote. Together, the two rulings strip the administration of its main tools for federal election oversight, at least for now.
The administration argued the lawsuits were premature and lacked legal standing under the Administrative Procedure Act. In fact, a D.C. federal judge, Carl Nichols, had sided with that argument in May, calling the challenge "premature" since the order had not yet been implemented. But after the USPS published a formal rule on June 2, 2026, courts found the threat concrete enough to act, NPR reported.
States Argue the Constitution Gives Them Election Power
The plaintiffs' core argument was simple: the Constitution's Elections Clause gives states and Congress — not the president — the power to set election rules. Judge Talwani agreed. Bonta called the order a "brazenly unconstitutional" attempt to suppress votes. Senator Gary Peters, D-MI, called the USPS ballot delivery plan "unacceptable" during the June 24 Senate hearing, the Maryland Daily Record reported.
Critics also raised doubts about the SAVE database itself. The Brennan Center for Justice noted that voting rights groups consider it "notoriously inaccurate" for voter registration purposes. The order was signed after the SAVE America Act — which would have required proof of citizenship by law — failed to pass Congress. Legal analysts say the courts applied the "major questions doctrine," which makes judges skeptical when agencies claim sweeping new powers without clear congressional approval.
What Comes Next as Midterms Approach
The Department of Justice is expected to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Because Judge Talwani's ruling conflicts with Judge Nichols's earlier D.C. ruling, legal experts say the case is on a fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court. The 2026 midterms are scheduled for November 3, 2026.
For now, the injunction removes the immediate financial threat to state election budgets. The 13 states — including Texas, Florida, and Ohio — that had already begun handing voter data to the DOJ before the injunction are in legal limbo, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The ACLU and the League of Women Voters both praised the ruling, with the League warning the order would have caused "chaos" and disenfranchised millions of voters.
Sentiment
NeutralPublishers
5
Articles
4
Reach
5
