Justice Department asks Supreme Court to let parts of Trump’s mail-voting order proceed ahead of 2026 midterms

The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to let it move ahead with parts of President Donald Trump’s March executive order on mail voting and voter verification while the case continues, putting before the justices a high-stakes question for the 2026 midterms: whether federal agencies can keep developing and implementing those changes ahead of the Nov. 3 elections.

In an emergency application filed July 27, the Justice Department said lower courts had blocked too much, too soon. The filing, submitted by Solicitor General D. John Sauer in Trump v. California, No. 26A124, seeks to lift or pause a June 25 ruling that bars key parts of the order in 23 states and Washington, D.C.

The order at issue, Executive Order No. 14399, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” was signed March 31. The blocked provisions would direct the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to compile state-specific citizenship-verification lists. They also contemplate changes involving the U.S. Postal Service that could affect how mail ballots are handled, delivered or designed, including envelope and barcode requirements.

For now, those parts of the order cannot be implemented in the plaintiff jurisdictions for the Nov. 3, 2026, federal election and any earlier federal elections.

The administration’s request comes after U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts granted summary judgment to the states on June 25 and blocked the order’s core provisions, identified in her opinion as Sections 2 and 3. Over the weekend, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declined to lift Talwani’s injunction, leaving it in place.

The Supreme Court has ordered the plaintiff states to respond by Aug. 3 at 4 p.m., setting up a fast-moving dispute over election administration just months before voting begins.

At the center of the case is a basic constitutional question: whether the president, through an executive order, can direct federal agencies to impose changes that affect how states run federal elections without clear authorization from Congress.

Sauer told the justices Talwani’s injunction is “extraordinary” and argued it should not stop federal agencies from continuing to develop implementation plans and rules while the legal fight proceeds. The administration says the case is premature because agencies are still working out what any final measures would look like, and that the district court stepped in before those policies had fully taken shape.

That argument tracks the administration’s position in another lawsuit over the same order. In a separate case in Washington, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols on May 28 declined to issue a preliminary injunction, concluding the challenge was premature because agencies had not yet taken concrete final steps. The contrasting rulings from Massachusetts and Washington have created a split in how lower courts are treating the order.

The practical stakes are immediate. The Massachusetts injunction preserves existing mail-ballot practices in the plaintiff states and the District of Columbia for this year’s midterms, at least for now. If the justices grant the administration’s request, federal agencies could resume work on citizenship-verification systems and proposed mail-ballot changes that state election officials say would require operational adjustments on a tight timeline.

Talwani’s June 25 opinion framed the dispute in constitutional terms. “The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” she wrote.

Unless the Supreme Court intervenes, that ruling means current mail-voting rules will remain in place in the plaintiff jurisdictions while the broader challenge to Trump’s order moves forward.