The executive order's directives to DHS and the U.S. Postal Service
President Donald Trump signed the March order directing the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of confirmed U.S. citizens in each state and provide those lists to election officials. The same order directed the U.S. Postal Service to draft rules on mail-in and absentee ballots. The administration framed these steps as agency-directed reviews and rulemaking rather than immediate, unilateral changes to state-run elections.
June ruling by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani
Three days after the order was signed, California and 22 other Democratic-led states sued. In June, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani struck down key parts of the administration’s plan. Talwani ruled the administration lacked authority to build its own citizen-voter database, found that the Postal Service could not impose new rules on states’ mail ballots on its own, and concluded that the enforcement language in the order amounted to an improper threat against local election officials. As a result of that ruling, the order has been blocked in 23 states and the District of Columbia.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer asks the Supreme Court for a stay
In a filing to the justices, Sauer argued the Massachusetts federal judge acted too soon by striking key portions of the order before agencies completed their review and any final rules were issued. He emphasized that the directives merely told agencies to study changes and to act only “to the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law,” and therefore — in the administration’s view — no state had yet suffered operational harm. Sauer asked the Supreme Court to pause the injunction while the case proceeds through the appeals court and to grant an immediate stay in the interim.
Legal precedent cited: Trump v. New York (2020)
To support its request, the administration leaned on a 2020 Supreme Court decision, Trump v. New York, where the justices dismissed a challenge to a different Trump administration order on census counts on the grounds that it was too early to determine how agencies would carry the order out. Sauer told the court the same logic applies here: because agencies have not finalized rules and retain discretion to alter or abandon proposals after public comments and legal review, a preliminary injunction was premature.
What this means for DHS, the U.S. Postal Service, and state election officials
- DHS and the U.S. Postal Service: Under the administration’s account, both agencies remain in a fact-finding and rule-drafting phase. Sauer’s filing highlights that they could “drop or narrow” proposed changes after completing public comment periods and legal reviews, meaning any final measures are not inevitable.
- State election officials: Judge Talwani found the order’s enforcement language to be an improper threat against local officials; the injunction already blocks federal enforcement across 23 states and D.C. If the Supreme Court grants a stay, those officials could face renewed federal pressure while the appeals process continues.
- California and 22 other Democratic-led states: The coalition that sued immediately after the March order will remain a direct party to the litigation and has argued that the Constitution vests election authority in the states and in Congress, not in the president acting alone.
Context in a broader legal and political fight
The filing arrives amid a broader string of disputes over the conduct of the 2026 midterms. The administration’s request follows a recent late-June Supreme Court ruling that allowed states to continue counting mail ballots that arrive after Election Day if they were postmarked on time. It also comes after a prime-time address earlier this month by President Trump in which he revived assertions that the 2020 election was rigged, this time pointing to China but, according to the filing’s account, without providing new evidence. Those developments form part of the immediate backdrop to the administration’s push to move the March order back into effect.
The immediate question now rests with the Supreme Court: whether to grant the stay Sauer requested while appeals proceed. If the court does not, the June injunction will remain in place across the 23 states and the District of Columbia; if it does, the block on enforcement could lift while the case continues through the appeals court and potentially back to the justices themselves.
Source: CyberScoop — Trump asks Supreme Court to let him curtail mail-in voting ahead of midterms
