Federal judge halts Trump’s election executive order seeking to create a federal voter list
The short version
- background: #000; color: #fff; cursor: pointer; display: inline-flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; gap: 10px; padding: 14px 22px; border-radius: 999px; font-family: inherit…
- background: linear-gradient(to bottom, rgba(255,255,255,0), rgba(255,255,255,1)); } Read More (function () { var APRM_EMBED_ID = "ap-readmore-embed"; var APRM_MOBILE_MQ = "(max-width:…
The story
2026-06-25T15:23:06Z
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, sided with a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the Republican president’s order in granting a summary judgment. Her ruling applies to this year’s midterm election cycle.
Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits, both filed in federal court in Boston, that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The judge agreed, noting in her ruling that the provisions of Trump’s order “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”
It was the second ruling in as many days against executive orders Trump has signed seeking oversight of the nation’s elections. A separate ruling Wednesday prohibited an executive order he had signed last year that would have required people to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote.
The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits challenging the order seeking to establish a federal voter list, argued that the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
But in an interim order before Thursday’s ruling, Talwani said the motions pertaining to this year’s election cycle were relevant: “In light of the EO’s specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period with the November 3, 2026 midterm occurring in just five months, postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs,” she wrote. That order denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the challenges.
Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.
Trump issued his second order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.
The Postal Service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.
The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was filed by Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states and the District of Columbia. Also signing on were attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, which has a Republican attorney general.
The states also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, had argued that no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.
In a separate lawsuit filed against the executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in May agreed with the Trump administration that it was too early to block the order because it had yet to be implemented. That lawsuit was brought by Democratic and civil rights groups, who have appealed.
Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.
Related Markets
All MarketsMarket data may be delayed. Not financial advice.
How other outlets covered this
Compare allAlto found this story at 17 outlets. Same event, different framing — compare the headlines.
- Google NewsJudge allows Trump’s mail-in ballots plan to proceed, at least for now - NBC Newsabout 9 hours ago
- AxiosStates renew fight against Trump's mail-in voting ruleabout 15 hours ago
- The Guardian — WorldFirst Thing: Supreme court threatens midterms mail-in voting as it backs Trump plan1 day ago
- ZeroHedgeFutures Slide Ahead Of "Pivotal Week" With Nvidia Earnings. Warsh Speech On Deck3 days ago
- Washington ExaminerUSPS issues final rule to restrict mail-in voting and comply with executive order4 days ago
- The VergeIt’s about ethics in journalism, with Ben Smith10 days ago
- Fox NewsFederal judge blocks Trump administration from restricting mail-in ballots ahead of midterms15 days ago
- Resist the MainstreamTrump Scores Court Win After Democrats’ Bid to Block Election Order Fails28 days ago
How this story developed
Full timelineAlto has tracked this across 33 days of coverage from 14 outlets.
Powered by Gab AI
The Story At A Glance
Reading this article now — analysis appears below
💡 AI analysis provides alternative perspectives on current events