League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump (March 2026 Mail Voting Executive Order)

On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued Executive Order 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections," purportedly mandating new rules for mail ballots. This is the second time the president has issued an executive order related to elections. Three courts blocked implementation of the first executive order, affirming that the Constitution assigns authority over elections to the states and Congress, not the president. The second executive order on mail voting is unconstitutional for the same reason.

This executive order contains three primary policy directives. First, the order directs the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to refuse to deliver mail ballots unless voters appear on a newly created list of mail voters and their ballot envelopes comport with specifications mandated by the order (Section 3 of the order). Second, it instructs the Department of Homeland Security to make a list of U.S. citizens in each state by combining data from several sources, despite none of those sources having comprehensive citizenship data and known flaws in that data. Third, it directs the attorney general to prosecute any individual, including election officials, who distribute federal ballots to ineligible voters.

On April 2, 2026, the Brennan Center and co-counsel American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF filed a federal lawsuit, League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump, to challenge the executive order. The suit was filed on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas, U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.

The lawsuit challenges the executive order’s mandate to create new rules for mail voting. The plaintiffs allege that the order violates the constitutional separation of powers because the President doesn’t have authority to set election rules. Only the states and Congress may do so. The plaintiffs also allege that the order oversteps the president’s authority by attempting to direct USPS, an independent agency, tasked by law with delivering all mail. The Constitution allocates authority over the USPS to Congress, not the president. Next, the plaintiffs argue that the order’s mail voting requirements would impose an undue burden on voters in violation of the Constitution’s protections of the right to vote. The plaintiffs further claim that the order violates the Tenth Amendment by threatening not to deliver mail-in ballots unless states alter their election procedures, violates the Voting Rights Act by preventing eligible people from voting, and fails to satisfy the requirements and protections of the Privacy Act.

Court Proceedings

The litigation over the Executive Order is ongoing and has been consolidated with State of California v. Trump (a challenge from California, 22 other states, and the District of Columbia).

On April 21, 2026, a group of states led by Missouri moved to intervene as defendants, which the court permitted on May 1.

On April 23, 2026, the League Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to block implementation of Section 3 of the Executive Order. On June 2, 2026, a federal district court heard oral argument on the League Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, California plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and defendants’ motions to dismiss.

On June 2, 2026, USPS published a proposed rule to implement Section 3 of the Executive Order.

On June 18, 2026, the district court ruled that the League and state plaintiffs’ claims are ripe for purposes of this year’s primary and midterm elections.

On June 25, 2026, the court granted California and the other plaintiff states’ motion for summary judgment. The court reaffirmed that the President has no authority to make rules for elections. For the primary and midterm elections this year, the court barred federal agencies from using the executive order as a basis to interfere with how the plaintiff states maintain their voter rolls or conduct mail voting. The court’s ruling also blocked USPS from withholding mail ballots from voters not on an approved list in the plaintiff states. The court has not yet ruled on the League Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.