Court Proceedings
The litigation over the executive order is ongoing.
League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump
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, as well as the State Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in California, and defendants’ motions to dismiss.
On June 2, 2026, the 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.
In a separate litigation, NAACP v. USPS, on July 1, the D.C. district court granted a preliminary injunction—or stopped—the implementation of Section 3 of the order. Because of this, on July 13, the judge denied the League Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the D.C. court’s decision mooted the League Plaintiffs’ motion. However, on July 17, the D.C. Circuit reversed the lower court’s order in NAACP. Thereafter, on July 20, the League Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction, once again seeking to stop the implementation of Section 3 of the executive order.
On August 11, the district court granted the League Plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a nation-wide preliminary injunction, thereby halting the implementation of Section 3 in all fifty states. The injunction was limited to this year’s elections.
On August 21, the USPS announced, just 74 days before the November midterms, publication of the Final Rule would take place on August 26, implementing the directive of Section 3 of the executive order contrary to the district court’s order. The League Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to enforce the preliminary injunction issued by the district court.
Before the court could rule, the Supreme Court held in California that the States’ case was not ready for judicial review before the USPS Rule was published. Accordingly, on August 25, the district court found that defendants violated the court’s preliminary injunction but imposed no remedy. On August 26, the district court vacated the League Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction due to the Supreme Court’s reasoning in California, but said plaintiffs could file a new complaint addressing the impact of the Final Rule.
The same day, the League Plaintiffs filed a supplemental complaint and motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO), which would immediately halt the implementation of the USPS’s Final Rule while the court decides whether to grant a new preliminary injunction (temporary restraining orders typically last for a very short period of time whereas a preliminary injunction can be in effect until a case reaches its conclusion). On August 27, the court granted the TRO, holding that the USPS may not implement or enforce the Final Rule for at least 14 days.
The next day, federal and state defendants appealed for a stay of the TRO. On September 3, defendants moved in the Supreme Court for a stay of the TRO despite the First Circuit not yet having ruled on that issue.
On September 4, the district court granted the preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO, meaning the Final Rule remained blocked. The federal and state defendants appealed the decision to the First Circuit and withdrew their application to the Supreme Court to stay the TRO. However, on September 5, they appealed to the First Circuit for a stay of the injunction. On September 6, they moved in the Supreme Court for a stay without waiting for a First Circuit ruling. On September 9, the League Plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants’ application. On September 10, the First Circuit denied defendants’ motions to stay.
On September 14, the Supreme Court denied defendants’ application for a stay. This ruling means the that Final Rule will not take effect for the November 2026 midterm elections.
State of California v. Trump
In a parallel litigation before the same judge in the District Court of Massachusetts, 23 states and the District of Columbia have challenged Sections 2 and 3 of the Executive Order. On April 21, a group of states led by Missouri moved to intervene as defendants, which the court permitted on May 1.
On June 25, 2026, the court granted the State Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, meaning the court determined the plaintiffs won their case without needing to have a trial. The ruling barred both the USPS mail ballot changes and the DHS voter lists, and was limited to this year’s elections. The ruling was also limited to the 23 plaintiff states, meaning that the USPS and DHS could, as a legal matter, implement the order in the rest of the country. Defendants appealed this decision.
On July 7, the federal and state government defendants filed emergency motions to stay the district court’s ruling to the First Circuit. As to the mail ballot rules, the defendants argued that because the USPS had not published a Final Rule, the State Plaintiffs had not suffered an injury and therefore did not have standing to sue. On July 25, the First Circuit denied the government’s request.
On July 27, federal defendants applied to the Supreme Court’s Emergency Docket for a stay. Four weeks later, on August 24, the Supreme Court granted the stay, agreeing with the government that the State Plaintiffs’ suit was premature before the existence of a Final Rule and lifting the injunction.
On August 21, three days before the Supreme Court ruled, however, the USPS announced, just 74 days before the November midterms, that the publication of the Final Rule would take place on August 26. On August 26, the State Plaintiffs filed a new complaint against the USPS in the District Court of Massachusetts addressing the Final Rule. They also asked for a TRO and a preliminary injunction. On August 27, the district court granted a TRO, halting the implementation or enforcement of the Final Rule for 14 days.
The next day, federal and state defendants appealed for a stay of the TRO to the First Circuit. On September 3, defendants moved in the Supreme Court for a stay of the TRO despite the First Circuit not yet having ruled on that issue.
On September 4, the district court granted the preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO, meaning the Final Rule remained blocked. The federal and state defendants appealed the decision to the First Circuit and withdrew their application to the Supreme Court to stay the TRO. However, on September 5 ,they appealed to the First Circuit for a stay of the injunction. On September 6, they moved in the Supreme Court for a stay without waiting for a First Circuit ruling. On September 9, the State Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the defendants’ application. On September 10, the First Circuit denied defendants’ motions to stay.
On September 14, the Supreme Court denied defendants’ application for a stay. This ruling means that the Final Rule will not take effect for the November 2026 midterm elections.
