...
By Dan Gooding and Andrew Stanton
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A federal judge on Thursday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at creating a federal voter list and restricting access to mail ballots ahead of this year’s midterm elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, granted summary judgment in favor of a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the measure. The ruling applies to the 2026 midterm election cycle.
On Wednesday, a different judge blocked the president's attempt to require proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.
Read More on Politics
Both rulings will be setbacks for the president's push for greater federal oversight over elections, despite states having long held the authority over how elections are administered. Trump has claimed that the differing approaches have led to voter fraud, including widespread immigrant voting despite ineligibility.
The case centers on an executive order signed in March that sought to increase federal oversight of elections under the banner of "citizenship verification and integrity."
Talwani struck down two of its central provisions, with White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson telling Newsweek that the administration was confident the new rules would be implemented.
"President Trump has also urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act and other legislative proposals that would establish a uniform standard of photo ID for voting, prohibit no-excuse mail-in voting, and end the practice of ballot harvesting to secure our elections for generations to come," Jackson said.
The rulings come as the Supreme Court weighs a separate case that could reshape mail voting nationwide, focusing on whether ballots must be received by Election Day to be counted.
...
Federal 'Citizenship Lists' Ruled Unlawful
The order directed federal agencies to compile state-by-state lists of "confirmed citizens" using government databases and transmit them to election officials. The court found this effort unconstitutional, concluding the president lacks authority to create or control voter eligibility systems.
"The Constitution provides that only the States determine voter-eligibility requirements," Talwani wrote.
The ruling also highlighted practical concerns, noting federal databases would be incomplete and unreliable for identifying all eligible voters.
Mail Voting Restrictions Blocked
A separate section required the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to develop rules governing absentee and mail-in ballots, including potential requirements that voters be "enrolled" with USPS and that noncompliant ballots not be delivered.
The judge ruled that neither the president nor USPS has authority to regulate voting in that way, writing USPS "lacks statutory authorization to promulgate any binding regulations on mail-in voting."
What Else Was in Trump's Executive Order?
The executive order additionally instructed the Justice Department to prioritize investigations into election officials who issued ballots to individuals deemed ineligible.
While the administration argued this fell within normal prosecutorial discretion, the court found that the language could act as a coercive threat against state and local officials.
The ruling noted that the order’s repeated references to criminal penalties “implicitly threaten enforcement” against election administrators, potentially chilling their ability to carry out lawful duties. As a result, the court barred federal authorities from pursuing enforcement actions tied to those provisions in the current election cycle.
A separate section of the order encouraging states to retain election materials for five years was allowed to stand, but only as nonbinding guidance. The court ruled that this provision is merely “precatory,” meaning it carries no legal force, and emphasized that existing federal law sets a shorter retention period and that the president cannot impose new requirements unilaterally.
Immediate Impact on 2026 Midterms
The decision prevents federal agencies from implementing the order before the November elections in plaintiff states.
That means:
- No federal voter eligibility lists will be created or enforced
- No new USPS ballot restrictions will take effect
- Federal authorities cannot pursue cases tied to those provisions
The ruling arrived while states have already been preparing for the next federal election cycle, with some having begun ballot printing and administrative planning.
Court filings showed several states had already incurred costs responding to the order, including millions of dollars spent on mail ballot materials that might have required redesign.
Massachusetts alone had spent millions of dollars on ballot envelopes that could have required redesign under the proposed postal rules.
What Did the Postmaster General Say About Mail-In Ballots?
Testifying before a Senate committee on Wednesday, Postmaster General David Steiner was asked if USPS would still mail out ballots to states that refused to hand over their absentee voter lists.
"No," he responded. “We would tell the state that we need the manifest."
Such a rule would “coerce” states into providing the Trump administration with sensitive voter information, Senator Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat who serves as ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said in response.
“This is basically a back-door way for the federal government to get voting information that states control under the U.S. Constitution,” Peters said at the hearing. “You’re telling the states, ‘Give the federal government this information—trust the federal government, trust the Trump administration, we’ll take good care of these—and if you don’t do it, you can’t mail absentee ballots.’”
Senator Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, criticized his remarks in a post to X as “insane and unconstitutional.”
“That's exactly why a federal judge just BLOCKED Trump's EO attacking vote by mail,” she wrote.
What Happens Next
The administration is likely to appeal, setting up a high-stakes legal battle over the limits of executive power in election oversight beyond November.
For now, however, the decision ensures that upcoming federal elections will proceed under existing systems, without the federal changes outlined in the executive order.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gabe Whisnant and Sam Wilson.
Correction, 6/25/26, 7:42 p.m. ET: An earlier version titled this story a "Supreme Court ruling." Thursday's decision was made in U.S. District Court.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines