BOSTON, Mass. — U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, a Barack Obama appointee, ruled Thursday, June 25, that key provisions of President Donald J Trump’s March 31, 2026, executive order on election integrity exceed presidential authority and violated the U.S. Constitution related to federal elections. The Trump administration and Department of Justice may appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and could seek a stay pending appeal.
“A federal judge just blocked Trump’s latest illegal executive order attacking mail-in voting in a lawsuit we co-led with a coalition of 23 AGs and one governor,” Washington State Nick Brown wrote on X, praising Judge Talwani’s ruling. “It’s a major victory for voters, expressly barring the Postal Service from refusing to deliver ballots in states that don’t cave to the president’s lawlessness.”
In a 37-page Memorandum & Order in State of California et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al. (Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-11581-IT), Talwani denied the State of Missouri and President Trump’s motion to dismiss the claims of 23 states and the District of Columbia for the November 3, 2026, general election and all earlier federal elections. She granted the plaintiff states’ motion for summary judgment, declaring Sections 2 and 3 of Executive Order 14399 legally void as ultra vires and unconstitutional under the separation of powers. Section 5 was deemed merely precatory and non-binding.
“The Postal Service’s founding mission was to ‘bind the nation together.’ Now, the federal government is using it as a tool to try and take over our free and fair elections,” Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said. “I applaud today’s ruling. I will continue to fight to protect Washington voters’ private information and our state’s constitutional right to administer elections.”
Section 2 of Executive Order 14399, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” directs the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, in coordination with the Social Security Administration, to compile “Confirmed Citizen Lists” of individuals confirmed as U.S. citizens who will be 18 or older and reside in a given state by the time of an upcoming federal election. The order required DHS to establish the necessary infrastructure by June 29, 2026, and to transmit updated lists to state election officials at least 60 days before each regularly scheduled federal election — meaning by September 4, 2026, for the November general election.
Judge Talwani found that Section 2’s directive to create and transmit federal Confirmed Citizen Lists, combined with threats of criminal enforcement against officials who do not align state practices with those lists, attempts to superintend and control states’ maintenance of voter rolls. This falls, she wrote in her opinion, outside the President’s Article II authority to take care that the laws are faithfully executed and constitutes an impermissible interference with state authority.
“…the EO includes no relevant statutory or constitutional authority for the compilation of ‘Lists’ that include individuals who meet the States’ additional and particular criteria for residence,” Judge Talwani wrote, adding, “…. Notably, nowhere in HAVA does Congress prescribe who should be included on State voter lists. Further, neither in HAVA nor any other federal statute does Congress authorize the federal government to create their own voting database. Instead, Congress, consistent with the Constitution, has left that authority to the States alone. Accordingly, the creation of the Confirmed Citizen Lists is ultra vires because the President lacks any authority to compile voter lists for each State.”
Section 3 of the EO directs the USPS to initiate a final rule by July 29, 2026, to require states using mail-in ballots to provide USPS with lists of approved voters and to condition transmission of ballots on voters being “enrolled” with USPS under processes specified in the rule. States could notify intent to use mail-in ballots no fewer than 90 days before an election and submit lists no fewer than 60 days prior.
For Section 3, Talwani held that USPS lacks statutory authority to promulgate binding regulations on mail-in voting procedures or to condition delivery of ballots on compliance with federally dictated lists or enrollment processes. She also ruled that the EO’s timeline bypasses the statutory requirement under 39 U.S.C. § 3661(b) that USPS submit proposals affecting nationwide postal services to the Postal Regulatory Commission for an advisory opinion.
“The EO’s directive that USPS require all States to use a specific mail-in ballot is inconsistent with USPS rulemaking procedure,” Judge Talwani wrote. “If seeking to make a ‘change in the nature of postal services which will generally affect service on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis,’ USPS must submit a proposal to the Postal Regulatory Commission (‘PRC’), for an advisory opinion. 39 U.S.C. § 3661(b). The PRC then has 90 days to issue its advisory opinion. … Therefore, USPS lacks authority to promulgate regulations on voting and the EO’s directive that USPS do so constitutes ultra vires executive action.”
Section 5 of the EO directs the U.S. Attorney General to prioritize investigation and prosecution of state and local officials who issue ballots to ineligible voters and states that “[s]tates and localities should preserve, for a 5-year period, all records and materials—excluding ballots cast—evidencing voter participation in any Federal election.”
Judge Talwani found that Section 5’s record-retention language used the word “should” which sought to impose a five-year preservation period where Congress has already set a maximum of 22 months under the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (52 U.S.C. § 20701). Because the President lacks delegated authority to impose additional mandatory retention requirements, she wrote, she consequently ruled it was an expression of policy preference without legal force on the states.
The plaintiff states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro — filed suit arguing the provisions are ultra vires, violate the separation of powers, the Elections and Electors Clauses, and the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown co-led the coalition alongside attorneys general from California, Massachusetts, and Nevada.
The states further argued that the EO violated the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act by making it harder to vote.
Brown had stated upon filing: “The President wants to control your vote. He wants to tell the Postal Service what ballots they can accept and when. But this is patently unconstitutional. Mail-in voting is safe and legal in Washington. We will do everything we can to defend it.”
The ruling directly blocks federal agencies from implementing or enforcing the challenged provisions against Washington and the other plaintiff states and comes one day after Postmaster General David Steiner testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that, under the proposed U.S. Postal Service (USPS) regulation tied to the executive order, USPS would not deliver mail-in ballots in states that refuse to turn over their absentee voter lists.
Author: Mario Lotmore
