Trump Mail-In Voting Executive Order Challenge (LWVMA)

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

Background

The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, along with other domestic and overseas civic voting organizations, filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order attacking access to mail-in voting. Plaintiffs argue that the order implements wide-ranging election procedure changes across the country in “an extraordinary and abusive assertion of executive power.” Specifically, plaintiffs claim the order “directs federal agencies to develop unreliable federal citizenship-verification mechanisms and transmit such information to the states,” and directs the U.S. Postal Service to amass a list of “approved mail voters” and deem any mail-in ballots ineligible for delivery if the voter is not on the list. The lawsuit asserts that the order violates constitutional principles, including the separation of powers, federalism and the right to vote; exceeds the scope of the President’s authority; and violates federal voting, privacy and administrative laws. Plaintiffs seek to block the executive 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:

• Sept. 9, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Trump administration’s stay application with the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Sept. 8, 2026: DOJ filed its reply in support of their emergency stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal in the 1st Circuit.
• Sept. 7, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their opposition to DOJ’s emergency stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal in the 1st Circuit.
• Sept. 6, 2026: DOJ appeals district court ruling to U.S. Supreme Court and asks for an immediate administrative stay.
• Sept. 5, 2026: DOJ appeals district court ruling to First Circuit appeals court for emergency stay of preliminary injunction pending appeal.
• Sept. 4, 2026: The district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking USPS’s final rule from being implemented for the midterms.
• Sept. 3, 2026: Preliminary injunction hearing. DOJ asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant an administrative stay on the lower court’s temporary restraining order pending the First Circuit’s ruling on DOJ’s motion to stay.
• Sept. 1, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their response to DOJ’s emergency motion to stay with the First Circuit. A decision is pending. LULAC plaintiffs in the DSCC case filed an amicus brief with declarations from Tammy Patrick, Chief Programs Officer of the National Association of Election Officials, on how the USPS final rule cannot feasibly be implemented for the 2026 midterms.
• Aug. 31, 2026: The district court denied the Trump administration’s motion to stay the Aug. 27 temporary restraining order blocking USPS’s final rule. Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their motions for a preliminary injunction. DOJ filed an emergency stay motion with the First Circuit. Red states filed a motion to stay with the First Circuit.
• Aug. 29, 2026: DOJ files its opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Red states also file their opposition.
• Aug. 28, 2026: The Trump administration appealed to the First Circuit. Red states also appealed to the First Circuit. The DOJ asked the district court to pause its TRO pending appeal. Red states file memo in support of DOJ’s request to pause TRO.
• Aug. 27, 2026: The Trump administration and red states filed their oppositions to plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order to block USPS’s final rule. The district court granted LWVMA’s motion for a temporary restraining order blocking USPS’s final rule for the midterms.
• Aug. 26, 2026: The judge vacated the preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from implementing the executive order. Plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint challenging USPS’s final rule and filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
• Aug. 25, 2026: The judge found that the Trump administration violated the preliminary injunction. The judge granted pro-voters’ motion to file a supplemental complaint challenging USPS’s final rule. The Trump administration filed their reply in support of their motion for reconsideration to vacate the preliminary injunction.
• Aug. 24, 2026: The Trump administration asked the court to vacate the preliminary injunction in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s order in State of California v. Trump.
• Aug. 23, 2026: The court rejected the Trump administration’s request for more time to file its opposition brief.
• Aug. 23, 2026: The Trump administration files motion announcing plans to oppose plaintiffs’ emergency motion and asking for additional time to file its opposition.
• Aug. 22, 2026: Plaintiffs file emergency motion to enforce the preliminary injunction, after USPS announces plans to finalize rule to execute Section 3 of the EO.
• Aug. 18, 2026: Red states appealed the court’s preliminary injunction blocking USPS from implementing Section 3 of the EO to the 1st Circuit.
• Aug. 11, 2026: The court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction to block USPS from implementing Section 3 of the EO.
• Aug. 7, 2026: The court will hold a hearing on plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction to block USPS from implementing Section 3 of the EO.
• Aug. 3, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• July 27, 2026: The Trump administration and red states filed their opposition to plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction.
• July 22, 2026: The court denied the Trump administration and red states’ motions to dismiss the case finding plaintiffs have standing to bring their constitutional and Voting Rights Act claims. The court granted the motions to dismiss as to plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedures Act claims.
• July 20, 2026: Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction in light of the D.C. Circuit staying the D.C. district court’s block on USPS implementing Section 3 of the EO.
• July 13, 2026: The court denied pro-voters’ motion for a preliminary injunction in light of the D.C. NAACP injunction blocking USPS from implementing Section 3 of the EO.
• June 18, 2026: The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims regarding the EO and its implementation for elections occurring after the 2026 midterms.
• June 2, 2026: Hearing was held.
• May 7, 2026: Red states filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. DOJ also filed a motion to dismiss.
• May 1, 2026: The court granted red states’ motion to intervene as defendants.
• Apr. 28, 2026: The court denied DOJ and red states’ motions to transfer the case to the D.C. district court. Red states filed their reply in support of the motion to intervene as defendants.
• Apr. 27, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their opposition to DOJ and red states’ motion to transfer the case to the D.C. district court, and filed their opposition to red states’ motion to intervene as defendants.
• Apr. 24, 2026: The DOJ filed their opposition to red states’ motion to intervene as defendants.
• Apr. 23, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Apr. 21, 2026: Parties filed a joint statement stating they do not oppose consolidation with State AGs. Red states filed motions to intervene in the lawsuit and to transfer the case to the D.C. district court.
• Apr. 16, 2026: The DOJ seeks to transfer the case to the D.C. district court. Parties filed a joint scheduling motion.
• Apr. 2, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their complaint.

Last updated: September 9, 2026 9:23 am EST