With just over three months to go before the November congressional elections in the United States, a federal appeals court has upheld the injunction blocking one of President Donald Trump’s key measures to change the administration of mail-in voting. The decision prevents the government, for now, from imposing new restrictions in the 23 states and the District of Columbia that challenged the executive order in court.
The ruling was issued Sunday by the Boston-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which rejected the administration’s request to lift an injunction that suspended the measure’s implementation while the litigation continues. The ruling protects the plaintiff states from the changes planned for the midterm elections on November 3.
The executive order, signed by Trump in March, directs the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration to compile a federal list of citizens eligible to vote. It also stipulates that the U.S. Postal Service deliver mail-in ballots only to individuals included in that registry.
The president defended the initiative as a tool to prevent non-U.S. citizens from participating in elections and argued that it was necessary to strengthen election security. “The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary,” Trump said in the Oval Office before signing the executive order.
However, state election officials and Democratic attorneys general argue that the measure exceeds the federal executive branch’s authority and could disrupt the organization of the elections by imposing new requirements just weeks before the vote.
In a 2-1 split decision, the majority of the First Circuit panel concluded that the executive order represents an unprecedented level of federal involvement in the administration of state elections. The judges noted that, if implemented before the November election, the new rules could cause confusion among voters and affect the access of eligible voters.
The justices also noted that the Constitution assigns to the states the primary responsibility for administering federal elections, an argument that was also central to the lawsuit filed by the states.
The legal dispute began after Democratic officials from 23 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on April 3 in a federal court in Boston. The plaintiffs argue that the president lacks the authority to unilaterally change election rules, as that power belongs to Congress and the states themselves.
In June, Federal Judge Indira Talwani granted a preliminary injunction that blocked the enforcement of the executive order in the states that filed the lawsuit. The administration appealed that decision, but the appeals court ruled to uphold the injunction while the case proceeds.
However, the ruling does not definitively resolve the dispute, nor does it have nationwide scope. The decision only protects the states that participated in the lawsuit, so there is still uncertainty regarding the possible enforcement of the restrictions in other states that are not part of the litigation.
This situation contrasts with a ruling issued last week by another federal appeals court, which overturned a separate injunction that had blocked the measure’s implementation on a broader scale. As a result, the legal landscape remains fragmented and could lead to different rules depending on the state where the elections are held.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice stated that it is reviewing all available options and expressed confidence that the executive order will ultimately be upheld by the courts.
The possibility that the case will reach the Supreme Court remains open, especially given the differences between the rulings issued by various federal courts regarding the scope of the injunctions.
All of this is taking place amid the debate over mail-in voting, a system widely used in many states and whose security has been questioned by Trump for several years. The president has repeatedly argued that this method facilitates voter fraud, although various investigations and reviews of past elections have found few instances of irregularities.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
