DOJ appeals decision blocking Trump’s executive order throttling mail voting

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is appealing a federal district court’s decision to block implementation of President Donald Trump’s anti-mail voting executive order in 23 blue states plus D.C.

The DOJ filed its appeal in California v. Trump Wednesday, a week after U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that major parts of Trump’s March 2026 anti-voting executive order were “legally void.” She found that the order exceeded the president’s power and violated the separation of powers by encroaching on states’ authority to administer elections.

If left to stand, Talwani’s decision would prevent the United States Postal Service (USPS) from refusing to deliver mail ballots unless election officials turned over state voter lists to the administration. Her order also prevents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) from effectively creating a nationwide voter registration list by compiling lists of verified U.S. citizens eligible to vote.

Talwani concluded that both of these efforts infringed upon states’ right to determine who can vote in upcoming elections.

“The Constitution reserves the power to determine voter eligibility to the States alone,” Talwani wrote. “Neither the Executive Branch nor Congress may interfere with this power.”

While Talwani’s ruling is limited to the 23 Democratic-led states that sued to block the executive order, a separate court order Wednesday issued a universal injunction against USPS’s attempts to follow Trump’s diktat. 

The DOJ has now asked the federal district court in Massachusetts to stay the injunction as the First Circuit Court of Appeals considers the case. In its appeal, the federal government primarily contends the state defendants lacked standing to sue because they had not been harmed by the not-yet-implemented executive order and Talwani erred by issuing a summary judgment. 

“[T]here is no basis to enter summary judgment for the California Plaintiffs based on hypothetical legal violations that they think might be forthcoming,” the DOJ attorneys contend. “The [Executive] Order is not self-executing; it does not itself regulate voter registration or how mail-in or absentee ballots will be transmitted; rather, it directs executive branch officials to take certain actions, subject to the limitations of existing laws.”

Election officials and legal experts alike castigated Trump’s order immediately after he signed it. The U.S. Constitution empowers states to run elections with congressional supervision; the president has no independent authority over voting. If left to stand, the executive order would wreak havoc this November on mail voters, who totaled over 48 million in 2024. 

The executive order faces other legal challenges. Talwani is also hearing a separate lawsuit by voting rights groups. And another suit led by Democratic party groups is now before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.* In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols ruled that the Democratic plaintiffs’ challenge was premature. Democrats appealed that ruling and the appellate court ordered expedited hearings on the matter last month. 

*The Democratic plaintiffs in this case are represented by Elias Law Group (ELG). ELG firm chair, Marc Elias, is the founder of Democracy Docket.