A federal judge in Boston on Thursday narrowed lawsuits challenging Donald Trump’s voting executive order, ruling that Democratic-led states and voting rights groups can only seek to block the order’s effect on the November 2026 midterm elections. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani dismissed challenges to the order’s impact on elections scheduled after the midterms, citing many uncertainties about how federal agencies will ultimately implement the directive.
Trump signed the executive order on March 31, directing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to compile a nationwide list of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state, derived from citizenship and naturalization records and other federal databases. The order also requires the U.S. Postal Service to restrict mail-in ballot delivery only to voters on each state’s approved mail-in ballot list, and directs the Department of Justice to prioritize investigations of state and local election officials who issue federal ballots to people deemed ineligible to vote.
In her June 18 ruling, Judge Talwani wrote that “postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs” given the “ever-narrowing window of time” before the election and the reality that primaries are scheduled before November 3. However, she determined that many uncertainties exist as to how the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Postal Service, and other agencies will adopt final rules and policies, justifying the dismissal of claims challenging the order beyond the midterms.
Voting rights groups and attorneys general from 23 states plus the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration in April, arguing the order violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law and risks mass disenfranchisement of eligible voters. They contend that under the Constitution, states—not the executive branch—hold the authority to administer federal elections. During an earlier hearing on June 2, Judge Talwani expressed concern that the order poses “a serious risk of unconstitutionally disenfranchising eligible voters,” according to reporting by Reuters and Democracy Docket.
The Boston ruling follows an earlier May 28 decision in Washington, D.C., where a federal judge declined to block the order entirely, finding the legal challenge premature at that stage. That decision was appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The narrowed Boston ruling allows the midterm-focused claims to proceed to trial, giving the court an opportunity to rule before the November election while leaving open the possibility of future litigation over the order’s longer-term effects.
Sources
- Reuters — Judge Talwani’s June 18 ruling narrowing the lawsuits, the order’s directives on citizenship lists and mail-in ballot delivery, and the composition of plaintiffs suing the administration
- The Hill — Judge Talwani’s reasoning for allowing midterm-focused claims to proceed while dismissing longer-term challenges, and the order’s requirements for states to verify citizenship
- Democracy Docket — Judge Talwani’s June 2 hearing comments expressing concern about disenfranchisement, the order’s structure, and the coalition of voting rights groups challenging it
