An absentee ballot box is seen at a polling station in Arlington, Virginia, on November 4, 2025. On May 28, 2026, DC District Court Judge Carl Nichols declined to block an order from President Donald Trump on mail-in voting. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
A federal judge declined Thursday to block President Donald Trump’s order restricting mail-in voting, saying it was too early to challenge the policy.
The Decision The Trump-appointed D.C. District Court Judge Carl Nichols represents a setback for Democratic groups, lawmakers and other groups, including the NAACP, that have sued to stop the order ahead of the November midterm elections. The Order dated March 31st faces at least five lawsuits.
The executive order directs the postmaster general, who runs the Postal Service, to propose a rule that would prevent states from sending ballots by mail except to voters on lists the state has provided to the Postal Service. According to the order, the proposed rule is due this week.
The order also directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of eligible U.S. citizens to vote in each state with the lend a hand of the Social Security Administration. Democrats claim the Trump administration is creating an unauthorized national voter roll, even though the U.S. Constitution gives states responsibility for conducting federal elections.
The Ministry of Justice had told the judge that the federal government has not yet implemented the directive. The judge’s opinion, released shortly after midnight in Washington, DC, makes clear that he could reach a different decision if the Trump administration moves forward with enforcing the order.
“The court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly impacts plaintiffs or their members, or that the government may create state citizenship lists that omit certain individuals because of specific deficiencies,” Nichols wrote in a 26-page opinion.
“Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions as these future claims arise,” he wrote. “Until then, however, the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that an injunction is justified.”
Effects on intermediate examinations
Nichols’ decision is the first in what is likely to be a lengthy legal battle that could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Thursday’s opinion simply addressed the question of whether the executive order should be blocked immediately – the underlying lawsuit to decide whether the directive is unconstitutional and unlawful continues.
Whether Trump can successfully implement the order will have significant consequences for the midterm elections. If the White House succeeds in preventing the Postal Service from sending or receiving mail-in ballots from voters who are not on state-provided lists, it could upend elections in states where mail-in voting is the norm and disrupt procedures in other states.
According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, about 30% of voters cast mail-in ballots in 2024.
Trump has described the order as a necessary measure to combat non-citizen voting, even though it is extremely sporadic. The directive marks the latest attempt by the White House to assert authority over elections the SAVE America Actthat would require voters to provide documents proving their citizenship fails in the U.S. Senate.
Democrats and voting rights advocates argue that the executive order is unconstitutional. Under the U.S. Constitution, states administer elections and Congress has the power to make regulations regarding them, but the president does not have the power to act unilaterally.
Postal service targeted
The dispute over the executive order also has implications for the future of the Postal Service. While the president previously appointed the postmaster general, the Postal Service has operated as an independent corporation since 1970, a change intended to protect mail delivery from politics.
Postal law experts say if Trump is able to enforce an executive order against the postmaster general, who is now appointed by a Board of Governors of the Postal Service, it will break the independence of the agency.
“Today’s ruling is a decisive victory for the rule of law and a blow to the Democrats’ strategy of suing first and making legal arguments later. The Trump administration will continue to fight for the security of America’s elections,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement.
The Democratic groups that sued the order, including the Democratic National Committee, expressed confidence in a joint statement that they would ultimately prevail. They said the decision does not change the principle that the executive branch cannot violate Americans’ voting rights.
The Democratic groups that sued the order, including the Democratic National Committee, expressed confidence in a joint statement that they would ultimately prevail. They said the decision does not change the principle that the executive branch cannot violate Americans’ voting rights.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and one of the plaintiffs, called mail-in voting sheltered and secure in a statement. He emphasized that presidents cannot rewrite the right to vote “by decree.”
“Trump’s strategy is simple: If he can’t win over voters, he’ll silence them — and now a MAGA judge is giving him the chance,” Schumer said.
A group of Republican attorneys general has also intervened in the case to defend the order. They argue that Trump has the authority to collect and organize information within the executive branch. They say Trump could direct the Postal Service to propose rules.
Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, who is leading the Republicans’ legal efforts, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Nichols’ decision.
Opponents are looking to Massachusetts
With the Nichols decision, a federal judge in Massachusetts offers opponents the next opportunity to quickly stop the policy.
Massachusetts District Court Judge Indira Talwani, appointed by President Barack Obama, will hold a hearing on Tuesday legal challenge filed by Democratic attorneys general led by California along with the League of Women Voters and other citizen groups.
Some legal analysts believe states may have an easier time challenging the order because its requirements, such as: For example, requiring states to provide voter lists in order to send ballots by mail directly affects them. David Becker, director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, wrote Social media said states have “much stronger claims” ahead of the hearing.
After federal authorities begin responding to the order, the challenge in Massachusetts “will be kept in mind,” he wrote.
“Maximum confusion”
At a Hearing in mid-May Before Nichols, lawyers for the Democratic National Committee, Democratic leaders Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York and other advocacy groups had argued that with the midterm elections less than six months away, there was no time to see how the Trump administration implemented the order.
The proposal would cause “maximum confusion” and be a “nightmare for election officials,” Danielle Lang, who argued on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, told Nichols. “Waiting will only undermine public confidence in elections.”
At the time, Nichols asked Justice Department lawyers to inform him of “anything that came close to making a significant change” in the implementation of the order.
Justice Department lead trial attorney Stephen Pezzi told Nichols that the plaintiffs had the right to “prepare for the darkest fears,” but he argued they could not enforce an injunction because of speculation about error-prone citizenship lists and a yet-to-be-created postal regulation.
Ultimately, Nichols agreed.
“In any event, given that the Executive Order does not require Plaintiffs to do anything and that no agency has yet acted pursuant to the Order in a manner that could harm Plaintiffs,” Nichols wrote, “at present they have not suffered harm, let alone harm that is ‘certain,’ ‘great,’ and imminent.”
