Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• US Department of Justice sues California to block tabulation of ballots allegedly cast by noncitizens — The US Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District of California seeking a court order to prevent the state from tabulating certain ballots in the midterm elections. The suit followed a demand sent to Los Angeles County officials on Tuesday containing a thumb drive with purported names of over 20,000 noncitizens registered to vote, with a 48-hour deadline to verify citizenship. Los Angeles County Clerk Dean Logan and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber both refused to act on the unverified list, citing lack of methodology and security concerns. The DOJ seeks an injunction requiring California to set aside and independently verify citizenship status of flagged voters before tabulation.
• Justice Department Sues State of California over Voter List — The Department of Justice announced this on 2026-10-15 through Office of the Attorney General. The recorded stage is a complaint filed. The allegations are unadjudicated; this documents the announcement, not the truth of any allegation. The department's own account of it reads: "The Justice Department, working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), today filed a complaint against the State of California over its voter list after determining that more than 20,000 people who are likely aliens are registered to vote in California. Under California law, every registered voter is mailed a ballot. It is unlawful for aliens to vote in federal elections."

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — Common Cause v. Department of Homeland Security, et al. (S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-08882) — Common Cause, Alabama House candidate Robert Hunter, SEIU Local 32BJ, and its PAC filed suit in the Southern District of New York challenging a $20 million Department of Homeland Security contract with a marketing firm to produce and air national television advertisements featuring President Trump. The ads, funded through an Office of Management and Budget reapportionment of Customs and Border Protection appropriations, began airing Sept. 23, 2026, and are labeled "Paid for by the U.S. Government." Plaintiffs allege the ads violate the Purpose Statute and the publicity-or-propaganda ban, constitute arbitrary and capricious agency action, and violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee by providing competitive advantage to Trump-aligned candidates in the 2026 midterm elections. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, vacatur of the apportionment and contract, a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and recovery of expended funds.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge dismisses DOJ lawsuit seeking Georgia voter data — On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Victoria Calvert dismissed the Department of Justice's lawsuit seeking unredacted Georgia voter-registration records, including Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and dates of birth. This marks the second unsuccessful attempt by the Justice Department to obtain the state's confidential voter information since 2025. Federal officials argued they needed the records to investigate Georgia's compliance with election law, but Calvert found that neither of the federal laws cited by DOJ required the state to surrender the confidential information.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: League of United Latin American Citizens v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security — LULAC, Common Cause, UnidosUS, and the City and County of Denver filed a complaint in D.D.C. challenging the Trump administration's policy authorizing ICE agents at polling places during the 2026 general election. Plaintiffs allege the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious and exceeds DHS statutory authority under 18 U.S.C. § 592, which bars armed federal personnel at polling places except to repel armed enemies. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment and an injunction barring armed officers from polling places, drop boxes, and curbside voting locations.

Supporting reports

• Missouri state supreme court rules Trump-backed congressional maps must go to voter referendum — The Missouri state supreme court ruled that the newly redrawn congressional maps, backed by President Trump and designed to favor Republicans, cannot be used in the November election without voter approval via referendum. The court's decision triggered fierce opposition from Trump, state Republicans, and the state attorney general, who claimed it would disenfranchise voters and create a constitutional crisis. This ruling preceded the conflicting federal court orders issued the same day.

Supporting reports

• Missouri federal judge issues temporary restraining order requiring use of Trump-backed congressional maps in November elections — US District Judge Stephen Clark issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on September 8, 2026, ordering Missouri to use newly drawn congressional districts favoring Republicans in the November general election, overriding the state supreme court's ruling that the maps must go to voters for approval. The TRO cited voter confusion and fairness concerns from using different maps in the primary versus general election. The order was immediately appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, creating conflicting legal directives days before the election.
• Missouri federal judge orders use of Trump-backed congressional map despite state supreme court block — On September 9, 2026, federal district judge Stephen Clark (Eastern District of Missouri) issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring Missouri to use newly drawn congressional districts favoring Republicans in the November midterm elections, overriding a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court ruling that had blocked the same maps. The TRO cited potential voter confusion if different maps were used for the general election versus the August primary. The decision triggered immediate appeals to the Eighth Circuit and US Supreme Court, leaving state election officials without legal clarity weeks before the election.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh denies emergency request to use Trump-backed Missouri congressional maps — Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied an emergency request from Missouri officials to use the newly redrawn congressional map favoring Republicans in the November elections. This denial occurred hours before the federal judge's contradictory TRO ordering use of those same maps. The conflicting rulings created immediate legal chaos regarding which map would govern Missouri's congressional elections.
• Justice Brett Kavanaugh denies Missouri officials' request to use Republican-favored House map — On September 9, 2026, US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied an emergency request from Missouri officials to use the House map favored by Republicans, leaving in place a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court ruling that had blocked the newer maps drawn to create an additional Republican-friendly seat. Kavanaugh's denial occurred hours before a federal district judge issued a contradictory TRO ordering use of the same Republican-backed map, creating legal chaos.

Supporting reports

• Trump administration asks Supreme Court to revive Postal Service mail ballot requirements — The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court Thursday to revive new Postal Service requirements for mail ballots after a federal judge temporarily blocked them. The requirements include voter list specifications, ballot envelope designs, and unique barcodes. The Supreme Court has not approved the rules. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson requested responses by September 8, and reporting indicated the online portal states would need to use was still not operational Thursday.

Supporting reports

• Senator Blumenthal demands USPS Postmaster General cease ballot mail project and provide records — Senator Richard Blumenthal, top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, issued formal demands to Postmaster General David Steiner to abandon the ballot mail IT project, cease work ordered halted by federal court, and provide by September 8 all records related to the project, including names and dates of personnel involved. Blumenthal characterized the system as designed to "disenfranchise millions of Americans," noting that one-third of all Americans cast ballots by mail.
• Senator Blumenthal requested information on USPS mail-voting plan and accused administration of political motivation — Senator Blumenthal requested detailed information from the Postmaster General about the USPS mail-voting verification plan. Blumenthal stated the USPS rule puts all mail voters at risk and accused the Trump administration of being "hellbent on changing the framework of casting ballots in this country, clearly for political reasons."
• Federal whistleblower disclosed flaws in USPS mail-voting verification system — An anonymous federal worker filed a whistleblower disclosure with Senator Blumenthal warning that the U.S. Postal Service's new system to regulate mail voting for the midterms has been "rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed." The USPS issued the rule last week, and it is currently blocked by federal court. The whistleblower alleges workers were forced to create the system in weeks when it should have taken 9 months, and that work continued on implementation even after being ordered to stop. The disclosure warns the Trump administration "has hidden the high likelihood that the new ballot mail verification processes will result in major disruptions in mail ballots ever getting delivered to voters." Specific concerns include rejection of entire batches of thousands of ballots when a problem with one voter is found, and no planning for inevitable errors. The whistleblower called one portion of internal software "garbage."

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al. (D. Md.) — Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland challenging Executive Order 14399 and a Department of Homeland Security implementation memorandum directing creation of "State Citizenship Lists" derived from federal citizenship, naturalization, Social Security, and other databases to be sent to state election officials. EPIC alleges the collection, disclosure, and consolidation of members' sensitive personal information—including Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and citizenship status—without consent violates the Privacy Act, Administrative Procedure Act, and constitutional provisions including separation of powers and the Elections Clause. EPIC contends the data is unreliable and risks eligible voters being misidentified as non-citizens and purged from voter rolls. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, vacation of the lists, deletion of data, and injunctive relief against further disclosure or use.

Supporting reports

• Preliminary injunction ruling — League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:26-cv-11549 — Judge Talwani found that USPS Defendants violated the court's preliminary injunction related to “initiating or completing rulemaking to promulgate” specific regulations outlined in Section 3 of EO 14399 by sending a corresponding Final Rule to the Federal Register on Aug. 22, 2026. However, the court declined to impose a remedy “other than identifying the violation,” finding that the relief requested by Plaintiffs would not remedy the past violation but noting that Plaintiffs could choose to file an amended complaint.
• Democratic attorneys general from 23 states filed lawsuit challenging the USPS mail-in ballot rule — Democratic attorneys general from 23 states filed a new lawsuit Wednesday challenging the now-final USPS rule that allows the Postal Service to police mail-in ballot eligibility. The AGs sought an emergency block on the rule, with the first mail-in ballots set to go out the following week.
• Federal judge lifted the last remaining block on Trump's plan to give the Postal Service a new role in policing mail-in ballots — Judge Talwani granted Defendants' motion to reconsider and vacated the court's Aug. 11 preliminary injunction blocking Section 3 of EO 14399 following the Supreme Court's intervening stay of a separate preliminary injunction to Sections 2 and 3 of the same EO in a different but related case, Trump v. California . The vacatur is without prejudice to Plaintiffs amending their complaint. That same day, Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental Complaint adding claims directly challenging the USPS Aug. 21, 2026 Final Rule implementing Section 3 of EO 14399 as a separation-of-powers violation and as unlawful agency action exceeding USPS statutory authority under Title 39. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that the EO and Final Rules are unlawful and enjoinment of Defendants from continuing implementation of the Final Rule.
• Preliminary injunction ruling — State of California v. United States Postal Service (D. Mass.) 1:26-cv-13917 — A U.S. district judge reluctantly lifted the final injunction blocking Trump's plan to reshape how mail-in ballots are handled. The judge stated the Supreme Court ruling earlier in the week left her little choice. The new Postal Service rules could result in ballots being rejected from voters who do not appear on newly compiled federal eligibility lists. Democratic attorneys general from 23 states filed a new lawsuit Wednesday challenging the now-final USPS rule and seeking an emergency block before mail-in ballots begin going out the following week.
• USPS implements Trump executive order restricting mail-in ballot delivery — Judge Talwani granted in part Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), staying implementation or enforcement of certain provisions of the USPS Final Rule for 14 days as to elections occurring on or before Nov. 3, 2026. The court found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that USPS lacked statutory authority to issue the Final Rule and that it is unconstitutional. The Court also found Plaintiff Organizations' members to be at risk of irreparable harm, facing a significant risk of disenfranchisement and interference with their rights under state laws. The Court is yet to rule on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Twenty-four states and DC file lawsuit challenging Trump mail-voting executive order — Judge Talwani granted in part Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), staying implementation or enforcement of certain provisions of the USPS Final Rule for 14 days as to elections occurring on or before Nov. 3, 2026. The court found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that USPS lacked statutory authority to issue the Final Rule and that it is unconstitutional. The Court also found Plaintiff States face irreparable harm as “compliance [with the Final Rule's requirements] is practically impossible as to the 2026 midterm elections.” The Court is yet to rule on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
• U.S. District Judge Talwani temporarily blocked mail-voting restrictions — The US Postal Service announced implementation of new rules requiring the post office to withhold ballots for mail-in voting to voters deemed ineligible by Department of Homeland Security and other federal records. The rules stem from a Trump executive order issued earlier in 2026 and apply immediately to November's midterm elections. The US Supreme Court lifted a lower court injunction on Monday; US District Judge Indira Talwani lifted a nationwide block on Wednesday. Twenty-four states and DC filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging the order as usurping state and congressional authority over elections.
• US District Judge Talwani lifts nationwide block on USPS mail ballot rule — Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Wednesday to block the Trump executive order restricting mail-in voting in the 2026 midterm elections. The states argue the USPS policy is part of a broader effort by the administration to "rewrite federal election law and usurp the authority of the states and Congress."
• — Late Thursday, U.S. District Judge Talwani temporarily blocked the Postal Service from enforcing Trump's new mail-voting rule, one day after USPS announced the requirements took effect. The temporary block lasts 14 days while the court considers a longer preliminary injunction, with a hearing scheduled for September 3. The case could quickly return to the Supreme Court. As of Friday morning, Trump's new mail-ballot restrictions are currently blocked.
• — US District Judge Indira Talwani lifted her nationwide injunction blocking implementation of the USPS mail ballot delivery rule, citing the Supreme Court's decision to lift the lower court injunction. The ruling clears the way for the rule to take effect for November's midterm elections.

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court lifts injunction, allows Trump mail-in voting crackdown to proceed — The US Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to lift a June injunction from a Massachusetts federal judge that had blocked Trump's March executive order targeting mail-in voting. The order directs the government to create a "state citizenship list" restricting mail-in ballot delivery and instructs the DOJ to prosecute state and local election officials deemed to have issued ballots to ineligible voters. Democratic-led states and voting rights groups challenged the order as unconstitutional; a second injunction remains in place. The ruling allows implementation to move forward while litigation continues ahead of November midterm elections.
• Supreme Court eased restrictions on Trump's mail-in ballot executive order — A divided Supreme Court lifted one of two injunctions blocking Trump's March executive order restricting mail-in voting, ruling the states' challenge was premature rather than deciding the order's merits. The unsigned opinion held that agencies had not finalized implementation rules when the challenge was filed. The USPS published final rules Friday and plans to make them official Wednesday. Legal analysts note the ruling is narrow and technical, with additional litigation expected as lower courts may issue new injunctions against the finalized rules before the November elections.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Trump v. California (26A124) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Trump v. California. Docket number(s): 26A124.
• Supreme Court gave Trump procedural victory on mail-voting restrictions — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states challenging Trump's executive order restricting mail voting sued too early, granting the administration a procedural victory. The Court explicitly stated its decision did not mean the administration's implementation would be lawful. The Postal Service subsequently issued rules implementing parts of the order, including new voter-list and mail-ballot-processing requirements. New lawsuits followed, and on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Talwani temporarily blocked the Postal Service from enforcing the new mail-voting rule for 14 days pending further court consideration.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: Democratic National Committee v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.D.C. 1:26-cv-02928) — The Democratic National Committee filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that the Department of Justice, FBI, and Criminal Division violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to respond to February 2026 FOIA requests seeking records on any planned inspection or seizure of ballots, voting machines, and voting system components ahead of federal election certification. The DNC filed the requests after President Trump's January 2026 statements regretting not seizing voting machines after the 2020 election and an FBI raid that month seizing archived ballots from a Georgia county election office. The DNC seeks an order compelling production of non-exempt responsive records, a detailed Vaughn index of withheld material, and an injunction against further withholding.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed: Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security — Nashville, Columbus, El Paso, and Harris Counties filed a federal complaint challenging FEMA's Fiscal Year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program conditions that withhold 20 percent of awards until recipients certify compliance with five "Election Administration Conditions," including hand-marked paper ballots, post-election manual audits, voter-to-ballot reconciliation, and citizenship verification via the SAVE database. Plaintiffs allege the conditions exceed FEMA's statutory authority, are arbitrary and capricious, violate separation of powers and the Spending Clause, and seek declaratory relief, vacatur, a stay, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — Democracy Forward Foundation v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (D. Md.) — Democracy Forward Foundation filed a complaint in the District of Maryland on August 4, 2026, seeking to compel USCIS compliance with five pending FOIA requests submitted between June 17 and June 24, 2026. The requests seek records on internal directives concerning a State Citizenship List, email communications of senior USCIS officials on election-related matters, policies governing USCIS access to USPS mail-in and absentee ballot datasets, DOJ Civil Rights Division SAVE query data and error rates, and planning documents on voter roll review. Plaintiff alleges USCIS violated FOIA by failing to issue timely determinations and wrongly denying expedited processing despite urgent public interest in transparency over USCIS's role in election administration ahead of the midterms. Plaintiff seeks orders compelling expedited production, a Vaughn index, and injunctive relief against continued withholding.

Supporting reports

• Twenty-five Democratic attorneys general sue Trump administration over politicized FEMA disaster aid conditions — Twenty-five Democratic state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, filed a federal lawsuit in Rhode Island challenging the Trump administration's imposition of "unlawful" conditions on over $740 million in federal disaster preparedness and counter-terrorism grants. The conditions require states to implement federal voter citizenship verification systems, conduct post-election audits, and assist ICE in deportation operations. The lawsuit also challenges FEMA's new authority to cancel grants if states are deemed misaligned with agency priorities. A Trump-appointed judge previously ruled similar conditions "unconscionable and unlawful."
• Twenty-five states and D.C. sued federal government over conditional disaster and homeland security funding — Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit in Rhode Island challenging FEMA and DHS conditions on billions of dollars in annual disaster relief and homeland security grants. The conditions require states to convert to paper ballots, conduct manual audits, reconcile voter registration lists, verify citizenship of all registered voters, assist DHS in immigration enforcement, and accept DHS authority to withdraw all grants at will. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha characterized the conditions as "unlawfully withholding billions in critical funding" to coerce election and immigration policy changes.
• Complaint filed — State of Illinois v. Federal Emergency Management Agency — On July 23, 2026, 25 states, the District of Columbia, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island challenging FEMA's new Fiscal Year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program conditions. The conditions require states to transition to hand-marked paper ballots, conduct post-election audits, verify voter and election worker citizenship using federal immigration databases, and comply with other election and immigration-related mandates as a prerequisite to receiving over $1 billion in federal preparedness funding. Plaintiffs allege the conditions exceed FEMA's statutory authority, are arbitrary and capricious, and violate the Spending Clause. They seek declaratory judgment, vacatur, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus.

Supporting reports

• Complaint filed — State of Illinois v. Federal Emergency Management Agency — On July 23, 2026, 25 states, the District of Columbia, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island challenging FEMA's new Fiscal Year 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program conditions. The conditions require states to transition to hand-marked paper ballots, conduct post-election audits, verify voter and election worker citizenship using federal immigration databases, and comply with other election and immigration-related mandates as a prerequisite to receiving over $1 billion in federal preparedness funding. Plaintiffs allege the conditions exceed FEMA's statutory authority, are arbitrary and capricious, and violate the Spending Clause. They seek declaratory judgment, vacatur, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus.

Supporting reports

• Justice Department threatened state election officials with criminal prosecution — On Tuesday, the Justice Department sent letters to all 50 states and Washington, D.C., warning election officials they could face criminal prosecution if they knowingly allow noncitizens to remain on voter rolls or cast ballots. Officials were given five days to explain compliance. Election law experts noted noncitizen voting is already illegal, studies show it is rare, and DOJ has not won a single lawsuit seeking state voter roll access. Experts characterized the letters as intimidation ahead of November's midterms rather than the start of prosecutions.
• DOJ threatens state election officials with criminal charges over voter data and noncitizen voting claims — The U.S. Department of Justice, under the Trump administration, sent letters to all 50 states and D.C. threatening potential criminal charges against state election officials who fail to comply with federal demands regarding noncitizen voting. The letters, signed by Harmeet K. Dhillon (head of the civil rights division), cite federal law and criminal liability, demanding states respond within five days on compliance measures. State officials from both parties rejected the threats as intimidation and noted courts have repeatedly ruled similar federal demands for voter data illegal.
• Department of Justice sent intimidating letters to state election officials — The Department of Justice, through Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, sent letters to election officials in all fifty states and Washington, D.C., warning of potential criminal prosecution if noncitizens vote and demanding they detail how they will maintain "clean voter lists" within five days. This followed federal court orders prohibiting the administration from seizing state voter lists for a noncitizen-identification program.

Supporting reports

• Trump says housing bill is "a big yawn" compared to Save America Act — During an Oval Office press availability, Trump stated that the housing bill coming to him later that day is "a big yawn" compared to the Save America Act, suggesting he has not yet decided whether to sign it.
• Trump declines to commit to signing bipartisan housing bill — When asked whether he would sign a bipartisan housing bill that passed Congress with overwhelming support, Trump declined to commit, calling the bill "a yawn." He indicated he would hold the housing bill hostage pending passage of a voter ID law he favors, stating that compared to the "Save America Act," most other legislation is "a big yawn." This conditional stance links his legislative cooperation to partisan electoral advantage.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court agrees to hear six new cases, including a dispute over proof of citizenship to vote — The Supreme Court has agreed to hear six new cases, one of which involves a dispute over the requirement of proof of citizenship to vote. This case could have significant implications for voting rights and election laws across the United States. The decision to hear these cases indicates the Court's willingness to address contentious issues that may impact democratic processes and civil rights.

Supporting reports

• Supreme Court upholds Mississippi mail-in ballot counting rule — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in Watson v. RNC that a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted if postmarked by and received within five days of Election Day does not violate federal law. The Court rejected the argument that federal law requires mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day itself.
• Supreme Court rejects RNC challenge to late-received mail-in ballots — The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Barrett rejecting the Republican National Committee's challenge to state laws counting mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received after Election Day. The Court held that the Federal Election Day statute does not preempt state authority to count such ballots and that responsibility for the mechanics of elections belongs to the states by default. The RNC had sued Mississippi in Watson v. RNC, seeking to establish that "Election Day" means the date by which all ballots must be received, a theory the Court rejected.
• US Supreme Court upholds state law counting mail-in ballots arriving after election day — The US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Watson v. Republican National Committee that states may count mail-in ballots postmarked by election day even if they arrive within five business days afterward. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and the three liberal justices, rejecting the RNC's challenge to Mississippi's law. The decision affirms state authority over election procedures and protects similar laws in fourteen states, Washington DC, and three territories. President Trump called the ruling a "tremendous loss" and renewed calls for the Save America Act.
• Justices uphold state law allowing for late-arriving mail-in ballots — The Supreme Court upheld a state law that permits mail-in ballots to be counted even if they arrive after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by that day. This decision supports the state's efforts to ensure that all votes are counted, particularly in light of potential postal delays. The ruling is seen as a victory for voting rights advocates who argue that such measures are necessary to ensure fair and accessible elections.
• Supreme Court releases opinion in Watson v. Republican National Committee (24-1260) — The Supreme Court released an official slip opinion in Watson v. Republican National Committee. Docket number(s): 24-1260.
• Trump characterizes mail-in ballot ruling as enabling illegal voting — During an Oval Office press availability, Trump stated that the Supreme Court's mail-in ballot ruling was "a little bit surprising" and "very detrimental to honest elections" because it "gives people more time to vote illegally."
• US Supreme Court strikes down limits on coordinated party campaign spending — The US Supreme Court ruled in National Republican Senatorial Committee v Federal Election Commission that limits on "coordinated party expenditures" are unconstitutional, eliminating restrictions on how much political parties can spend in support of their candidates. The case originated from a 2022 lawsuit by JD Vance and Republican officials challenging the FEC's enforcement of these limits. The Trump administration supported the challenge; the FEC, lacking a quorum since April 2025, could not mount a full defense. The ruling continues a two-decade trend of dismantling campaign finance restrictions.
• Supreme Court rules in favor of unlimited coordinated political party spending — The Supreme Court issued a ruling permitting unlimited coordinated spending by political parties. The decision expands the scope of campaign finance by removing restrictions on coordination between parties and outside groups, potentially increasing the influence of wealthy donors and organized party structures in elections.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocks Trump administration's executive order restricting mail-in voting — US District Judge Indira Talwani ruled unconstitutional an executive order issued by Trump on March 31, 2026, requiring the postal service to implement a barcode tracking system for ballot envelopes tied to citizenship data. The order would have denied mail-in ballots to states refusing to submit voter rolls to federal officials. Voting rights groups, 23 states, and DC sued to block the rule, arguing the Constitution grants no presidential authority over election administration. The injunction prevents the administration from creating a federal program to control state voter rolls or prosecuting states for non-compliance, though states may voluntarily participate.
• Federal judge blocks Trump executive order requiring voter citizenship documentation — US District Court Judge Denise Casper in Massachusetts ruled on June 25, 2026, that Trump's executive order mandating documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration was unconstitutional. The order would have required voters to present passports, birth certificates, or similar documents. Casper found that the Constitution grants the President no specific powers over elections, which are primarily governed by states and Congress. None of the order's provisions had been implemented before the ruling.
• Summary judgment ruling — State of California v. Trump (D. Mass.) 1:26-cv-11581 — Judge Talwani granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, declaring Sections 2 and 3 of Executive Order 14399 - which directed DHS to compile “State Citizenship Lists” of eligible voters from federal databases and directed USPS to maintain “Mail-In and Absentee Participation Lists” and refuse delivery of mail ballots from voters not on those lists - legally void as ultra vires and unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers. The court held that voter eligibility is reserved exclusively to the states under the Constitution and that no federal statute delegates to the president or USPS any authority over mail-in ballot delivery. The court permanently enjoined defendant agencies from implementing those provisions with respect to the Nov. 3, 2026 general election and any earlier federal elections in Plaintiff States. The court also declared Section 5 of the EO - which provided that states should preserve election records for five years - is a nonbinding recommendation because the president lacks authority to impose a retention requirement beyond the twenty-two-month period Congress set in the Civil Rights Act of 1960. Defendants are ordered to file a status report with the court within seven days describing steps taken to ensure compliance.
• Federal judge voided mail-ballot restriction order — On Thursday, June 26, Judge Indira Talwani voided the core of the March mail-voting order, which would have used the Postal Service to limit mail-ballot delivery to a federally approved voter list and would have built that national list in the first place. Roughly two dozen states joined the suits challenging the order.

Supporting reports

• Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejects Trump administration suit against Michigan for voter roll access — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the Trump administration's lawsuit against Michigan seeking access to state voter rolls. This ruling continues a pattern in which courts have struck down Trump's attempts to obtain voter rolls in all nine cases on which there has been a ruling. The administration has sued 30 states and the District of Columbia to compel surrender of voter rolls.
• U.S. District Judge Denise Casper permanently blocks Trump's March 2025 election executive order — U.S. District Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently blocked much of Trump's March 2025 executive order attempting to gain power over elections. The ruling prevents implementation of provisions that would have centralized election authority in the executive branch.
• Federal judge permanently barred proof-of-citizenship registration order — On Wednesday, June 25, Judge Denise Casper in Boston permanently barred the proof-of-citizenship registration order, writing that the Constitution gives the president no specific power over elections. The ruling struck down a key element of the administration's effort to federalize election administration.

Supporting reports

• Federal judge blocked use of revamped immigration database to scrub voter rolls — On Monday, June 23, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan in Washington blocked the use of a revamped immigration database, stitched together from Social Security numbers and citizenship data, to scrub state voter rolls. Advocates had called the database unreliable.
• U.S. District Judge Sooknanan blocked SAVE system for voter roll checks — U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Trump administration could not use the SAVE system (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) to check state voting rolls. The judge stated: "The federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote." The administration had attempted to force states to turn over voting rolls to run through a federal database query system. A ProPublica investigation in February showed the system had an error rate of at least 14 percent, misidentifying legal voters as illegal ones.
• Federal judge blocks nationwide voter roll purge database — A federal judge issued a nationwide injunction blocking Trump's voter roll purge database. The ruling prevented implementation of the system across all states.

Supporting reports

• United States Postal Service proposed mail-in ballot restriction — The United States Postal Service proposed a rule that would send mail-in ballots only to voters registered with the federal government. The proposal would represent a massive expansion of federal control over voting without congressional authorization. The proposal reflects the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to gain control over state voter lists and election administration, efforts that have been repeatedly rejected by courts on the grounds that the Constitution establishes that states run elections.
• Federal judge in Massachusetts blocks USPS mail ballot restriction — A federal judge in Massachusetts issued an order in June 2026 blocking the Trump administration's directive to the USPS to restrict mail ballot delivery to voters on federal pre-approved lists. The block applies to the 23 blue states and Washington, D.C. that challenged the order.
• Trump orders DOJ to investigate California elections — Trump ordered the Department of Justice to investigate California elections after his preferred candidate trailed in the state's June gubernatorial primary. The order relied on conspiracy theories to justify the investigation.