The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on July 25, 2026, that President Trump’s executive order tightening mail-in voting rules cannot be implemented, upholding an earlier injunction that blocked the policy. The decision deals a significant setback to the administration’s efforts to restrict how Americans vote ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections.
The executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile a verified list of U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each of 23 states and D.C., drawing on federal citizenship databases including those held by the Social Security Administration. The same order instructed the Justice Department to investigate state and local officials who mail ballots to people the administration considers ineligible. The stated goal was to prevent non-citizen voting by adding a federal verification layer to mail-in ballot procedures.
U.S. District Judge Talwani had already found parts of the order unconstitutional in a June 2026 ruling, concluding that the president lacked authority to direct DHS to compile citizenship data in that manner, and that the U.S. Postal Service had no authority to follow the order’s directives on mail voting. That ruling led to the injunction the appeals court has now upheld.
Democratic-led states brought the legal challenge, arguing that the order usurped authority the Constitution reserves to states and erected unconstitutional barriers to voting. Their argument carried in the lower court and, by a 2-1 margin, in the appeals court. The split decision does reflect some judicial disagreement on where precisely the lines of presidential authority lie — and that disagreement could carry weight if the case reaches the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department has signalled it is prepared to seek Supreme Court review. A high court ruling on the constitutional question would ultimately determine whether presidents can reshape mail-in voting procedures through executive action, representing a major precedent for future administrations regardless of party. The Supreme Court’s current composition — shaped in part by Trump administration appointments — adds uncertainty to how such a ruling might go.
For now, the court’s decision preserves the status quo. Mail-in voting in the affected states continues under existing rules while the legal process plays out. With the November 2026 midterms approaching and the 2026 midterm map already competitive, any Supreme Court intervention on voting procedures would arrive with enormous stakes. Voting rights advocates welcomed the ruling as a protection of voter access; the administration framed the legal challenge as an attempt to block legitimate election security measures. That disagreement — about whether mail-in voting is an access tool or a vulnerability — sits at the heart of a debate that shows no sign of resolution.
