Ahead of midterms, judge allows states to challenge Trump mail voting order 

(CN) — A federal judge on Thursday greenlit a lawsuit from Democratic-led states challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order overhauling mail-in voting, which they say is a “completely unlawful” attempt to suppress voter turnout ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

In a 17-page order, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani found the states could face “significant hardship” if barred from challenging the policy as it takes shape ahead of the Nov. 3, 2026, election.

The order has “create[d] a ‘direct and immediate’ dilemma” for the plaintiffs, Talwani wrote, because it requires state election officials and voters to contend with the likelihood that federal agencies will implement its directives while details continue to emerge.

At the same time, the Barack Obama appointee in the District of Massachusetts dismissed claims tied to future elections, finding it was too early to challenge what she described as an “evolving and dynamic process."

“Withholding court consideration of the EO as it relates to distant elections will pose little hardship where there will be sufficient time for legal challenges to the EO after implementation,” she wrote.

The states filed suit in April, days after Trump signed an executive order titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The order would direct the creation of voter eligibility lists and instruct the U.S. Postal Service to send mail ballots only to voters verified on those lists.

It also threatens criminal investigations of election officials and the withholding of federal funds from states that do not comply.

“The president’s latest attempt to interfere with the states’ administration of their elections is as unprecedented as it is unconstitutional,” the states said in the complaint. “Under our Constitution, the president has no authority to restrict voter eligibility or mail voting to lists of voters pre-authorized by the federal government.”

They argue the order would create voter confusion and risk disenfranchisement given the timing of the changes.

A coalition of civil rights groups, led by the League of Women Voters, filed a similar challenge. Talwani’s order applies to that case as well.

The judge did not rule on the merits, finding only that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the order as it relates to the 2026 election.

“With an ever-narrowing window of time in which review is appropriate and practicable," Talwani wrote, “the court finds that the legality of the EO as to the Nov. 3, 2026 election is both ripe and fit for review.”

In a statement to Courthouse News, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson implied the fight isn’t over.

“The Trump administration will continue to fight for the agenda the president was elected on — which includes the safety and security of our nation’s elections,” Jackson said. “This very campaign pledge from the president is why millions of Americans sent him back to the White House. Election security is common sense, and Democrats owe it to the American people to support the president’s mission to secure our elections.”

The lawsuits are among several challenges to Trump’s efforts to restrict mail voting, which he has repeatedly and baselessly claimed is vulnerable to fraud since his 2020 election loss.

Last year, a separate coalition of states successfully challenged another executive order imposing citizenship documentation requirements and Election Day receipt rules for ballots. In that lawsuit, the states prevailed. A federal judge ruled the action was “blatantly unconstitutional” and risked chilling voter participation.

Follow @Uebey Follow @uebey.bsky.social