Trump Mail-In Voting Executive Order Challenge (LULAC)

A pro-voting lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order attacking mail-in voting.

Background

The League of United Latin Americans Citizens, the Secure Families Initiative, and the Arizona Students’ Association, filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order attacking access to mail-in voting. Plaintiffs assert that the order interferes with Congress and the states’ authority to oversee elections, hinders the ability of state and local election officials to administer elections, and strips the U.S. Postal Service of its independence – all with the intent to make it “far more difficult for eligible U.S. citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote.” Plaintiffs argue that the order “is the culmination of the administration’s months-long effort to unlawfully and hastily build a nationwide citizenship database,” building on efforts by the DOJ to obtain access to all states’ voter rolls. The lawsuit asserts that the order exceeds the President’s authority, violates constitutional separation of powers, and violates federal privacy and administrative laws. Plaintiffs seek to block the order.

Why It Matters

This is Trump’s second executive order attempting to take control of federal elections and disenfranchise voters. Courts have consistently ruled that only Congress and the states – not the president – have authority over elections. Despite this, Trump has expressed repeated opposition to mail-in voting, saying at the order signing, “Cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible. Democrats want to use it for cheating.”

Latest Updates:

• Apr. 9, 2026: A new judge has been assigned. The judge consolidated this case with DSCC and NAACP’s cases, and has set a briefing schedule for plaintiffs’ forthcoming motions for preliminary injunction. Defendants filed their opposition to LULAC’s motion to expedite discovery. Future updates can be found on the DSCC’s case page.
• Apr. 8, 2026: The court granted DOJ’s request for a new judge to be assigned to the case. Parties filed a joint statement in favor of consolidating this case with DSCC and NAACP’s cases. Plaintiffs also asked the court to grant expedited discovery in support of their forthcoming motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Apr. 6, 2026: The court ordered parties to address: 1) whether this case should be consolidated with other cases challenging Trump’s second executive order, and 2) whether this case shares “common issues of fact” with previously consolidated cases challenging Trump’s first executive order on voting last year.
• Apr. 2, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their complaint and a notice with the court that this case shares “common issues of fact” with previous cases challenging Trump’s first executive order on voting last year.