Among other provisions, the order instructed the U.S. Postal Service to develop procedures governing the handling of mail ballots. It also directed the Department of Homeland Security to work on lists identifying U.S. citizens who are at least 18 years old.
Under the administration’s proposed framework, mail-in ballots could be delivered only to voters whose names appeared on the relevant state citizenship lists.
The order was quickly challenged by a coalition of 23 states and the District of Columbia, led by California. The states argued that Trump’s directive intruded on powers traditionally exercised by the states, including authority over voter qualifications and the administration of elections.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, sided with the states. On June 25, she issued an order preventing the federal government from enforcing the mail-ballot and citizenship-list provisions in the states participating in the lawsuit ahead of the November 3, 2026, elections.
The Trump administration appealed, but a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit declined to grant the government’s request for relief.
The appeals court majority warned that allowing the order to take effect close to the election could create disruption for voters and election officials.
If the order were “to take effect for the elections taking place” in the fall, the majority wrote, “it would sow confusion and threaten disenfranchisement of many eligible voters.”
With the lower courts refusing to lift the restrictions, the Trump administration turned to the Supreme Court.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the lower court’s decision was far too sweeping and improperly prevented the administration from moving forward with its election-related plans. He described the injunction as “extraordinary” and argued that it “flouts settled” legal principles governing when federal courts should intervene.
The administration also asked the Supreme Court for an immediate administrative stay that would temporarily suspend the lower court’s order while the justices consider the broader emergency request.
However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did not immediately grant that request.
Instead of issuing a formal ruling on the administration’s application, Jackson directed the states challenging Trump’s order to submit a response within seven days.
The development means the administration will have to wait as the Supreme Court receives arguments from both sides before deciding whether the contested provisions can move forward before the midterm elections.
“The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to restore key parts of President Trump’s election integrity executive order, including provisions directing USPS to change federal mail-ballot procedures, arguing lower courts blocked the policy before any final agency action,” SCOTUSBlog noted on X.
That issue—whether the courts acted before the administration had completed the regulatory process—has become a central part of the government’s argument.
Sauer contended that the states brought their challenge prematurely because the agencies involved had not yet completed or announced the final details of how Trump’s executive order would be implemented.
According to the administration, courts should not block hypothetical implementation plans before the responsible agencies have taken final action.
Sauer further argued that the administration could suffer significant harm if the injunction remains in place while the case moves through the normal appeals process.
“Even if the agencies’ implementation plans end up being entirely lawful,” Sauer wrote.
“There is not enough time to obtain ordinary appellate relief from the injunction in order to carry them out before the November election, especially given that any such plans will need to be implemented well before November given the timing of election procedures concerning voter-roll verification and mail voting,” Sauer added.
The timing could prove critical. Election procedures, voter-roll verification, and mail-ballot systems generally require preparation well before Election Day, meaning a prolonged legal fight could effectively prevent the administration from implementing the disputed measures for the 2026 midterms even if the government ultimately prevails.
For Trump, the case has become another test of his broader effort to reshape federal involvement in election administration and place greater emphasis on citizenship verification and election safeguards.
For now, the legal battle remains unresolved.
Justice Jackson has given the states until August 23 to respond to the Trump administration’s emergency request. The Supreme Court could then decide whether to allow the disputed provisions to move forward, leave the lower court’s restrictions in place, or take additional time to consider the administration’s arguments.
With the fall midterms approaching, the clock is now becoming an important part of the legal fight.
