A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has refused to temporarily block President Trump’s March 31 executive order aimed at restricting voting by mail, leaving the policy in effect for now while legal challenges continue. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, said the plaintiffs had not yet shown that emergency relief was warranted because the order’s most direct effects have not fully taken shape. He noted that the Postal Service could later issue a final rule affecting voters, or that state citizenship lists created under the order could contain specific errors, and said challengers may return to court if those developments occur.
The executive order directs the Department of Homeland Security to work with the Social Security Administration to create lists of adult U.S. citizens in each state and share them with state election officials. It also instructs the U.S. Postal Service to identify eligible voters and deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. The ruling does not settle the legality of the order, but it does allow the administration to keep moving forward unless another court intervenes.
The decision is part of a wider legal fight over Trump’s election-related actions. A separate executive order issued in 2025 has already been blocked by courts. In the new case, Democrats, voting rights organizations, and nearly two dozen states, along with Washington, D.C., have filed five lawsuits arguing that the president does not have the constitutional authority to set rules for federal elections. They say Article I gives that power to state legislatures and Congress, not the White House. They also contend that the order improperly tells USPS to make rules about election mail, exceeding the agency’s authority.
The administration has not made clear how the order will be implemented. In an early May court filing, officials said federal agencies were still deciding how to carry it out. Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche later told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that the Justice Department is working with other agencies to ensure the order’s goals are implemented. The uncertainty has added to concerns about how the directive could affect mail voting in state primaries and upcoming federal elections.
Trump has said he issued the order to prevent illegal voting by noncitizens in federal elections, although reviews and research have found such voting to be extremely rare. He himself voted by mail in Florida in March. The dispute also comes amid a broader partisan divide over mail voting, which remains widely used by voters of both parties, though more registered Democrats than Republicans said they voted by mail in the 2024 national election.
Nichols’ ruling came from one set of lawsuits filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. Another federal judge in Boston is expected to rule in the coming weeks on a similar request to block parts of the order in two related lawsuits. A decision there could further shape the future of Trump’s mail-voting directive.
