Trump Action Archive

Supporting reports

• Federal judge in Maryland rules against DOJ in voter file access case — A federal judge in Maryland issued a ruling against the Department of Justice in a case seeking access to state voter files, marking the DOJ's ninth consecutive loss in a series of 31 cases filed to obtain such records. The court concluded that state voter files are not records that states must produce to the federal government. Five of the nine losses were decided by judges nominated by Trump, according to the article.
• Democratic Party and Marc Elias law firm file litigation against Trump executive orders on voting — The Democratic Party, represented by attorney Marc Elias and his law firm, filed lawsuits challenging Trump administration executive orders targeting voting rights. The article indicates this litigation is part of a broader defensive strategy across multiple cases, including the 31 voter file cases and anticipated litigation if the U.S. Postal Service adopts a proposed anti-voting rule.
• Supreme Court to decide mail-in voting case brought by Republican National Committee — The Supreme Court is scheduled to decide a case brought by the Republican National Committee concerning whether ballots mailed and postmarked by Election Day may be counted if they arrive after Election Day. The article notes the outcome could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and that Marc Elias's firm is defending against the lawsuit.

Supporting reports

• Virginia Supreme Court strikes down voter-approved congressional redistricting maps — Virginia's Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on May 8 that the state cannot use new congressional maps approved by voters in an April referendum. The court found that the Democratic-controlled state legislature violated the state constitution by passing the amendment creating the maps before early voting began in the 2025 general election, rather than following the required two-session approval process. The maps would have helped Democrats gain up to four House seats. The ruling nullifies the referendum result and restores the previous maps, benefiting Republicans ahead of November's midterm elections.
• Virginia Supreme Court struck down redistricting referendum — The Virginia Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision invalidating a voter-approved redistricting referendum that had taken place on April 21, 2026. The court ruled that the legislature had not satisfied the constitutional requirement of passing the amendment through two consecutive legislative sessions with an election in between, finding that the first passage occurred while early voting was already underway in the 2025 statewide elections. The decision overturned the will of approximately 3 million Virginians who voted in the referendum.
• Virginia Supreme Court struck down new congressional maps — The Virginia Supreme Court struck down the state's new congressional maps, which had been narrowly approved by voters in an April referendum, ruling that the constitutional amendment was submitted by the legislature "in an unprecedented manner." The new map would have paved the way for Democrats to win as many as four additional House seats in the midterm elections. The court's decision blocked a voter-approved redistricting reform.
• Virginia Supreme Court struck down voter-approved redistricting referendum — The Virginia state supreme court, voting 4–3 along partisan lines, struck down a referendum approved by Virginia voters on April 21, 2026, that would have created a temporary new congressional district map to gain four additional seats for Democrats and counter Republican gerrymandering. Voters had approved the measure in response to gerrymandering imposed by Republican legislators in Texas, Ohio, Tennessee, Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida, which is expected to gain Republicans an additional 14 seats nationally. The court ruled that the process of passing the referendum violated the state constitution. The decision occurred in the context of Trump's low job approval ratings (low 30s), public anger over rising prices, frustration with the Iran war, and dislike of the administration's attacks on immigrants. Trump posted on social media celebrating the decision as a "huge win for the Republican Party."

Supporting reports

• US Supreme Court blocks deportations under Alien Enemies Act; federal judges escalate enforcement against Trump administration defiance — The US Supreme Court issued a temporary order early Saturday blocking the federal government from removing detainees held in northern Texas under the Alien Enemies Act, after lawyers reported detainees received English-only notices with no information on how to challenge deportation. Separately, US District Judge James Boasberg found probable cause to hold the government in contempt for defying orders to halt deportations, and Judge Paula Xinis ordered daily compliance updates after the administration ignored orders to facilitate the return of wrongly deported Kilmar Ábrego García to the United States. The rulings underscore an escalating constitutional conflict over judicial enforcement power.
• Case update — D.B.U. v. Trump (D. Colo.) 1:25-cv-01163 — Petitioners filed a reply in support of their motion for an emergency TRO and requested the Court maintain the TRO due to the government's transfer of detainees under the AEA with less than 24 hours notice.
• Amy Klobuchar calls on Supreme Court to hold Trump officials in contempt for ignoring deportation order — Senator Amy Klobuchar called on the U.S. Supreme Court to hold Trump administration officials in contempt for allegedly ignoring a court order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident the government admitted it deported by mistake to El Salvador. Klobuchar suggested the Court appoint an independent special prosecutor outside the Department of Justice to enforce the rule of law. Her comments followed Justice Samuel Alito's dissent criticizing the Court's decision to block deportations of Venezuelans held in Texas.