Federal Appeals Court Reinforces Block on Trump’s Mail-In Voting Restrictions

A federal appeals court on Saturday upheld a lower-court decision blocking core provisions of a Trump executive order aimed at restricting mail-in voting, marking another legal obstacle to the former president’s efforts to influence election processes as Republicans seek to maintain narrow congressional majorities amid political headwinds.

In a 20-page ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit determined that the order compelled “unprecedented federal oversight of state election administration.” The court warned that implementing the directive ahead of November’s midterm elections could “cause confusion and risk disenfranchising eligible voters,” emphasizing constitutional limits on executive power.

The Constitution assigns election governance to states and Congress, not the executive branch. Despite this, Trump has pursued an extensive campaign against mail voting, including signing executive orders, endorsing litigation, and advocating legislation to limit the practice, which he personally utilizes. Courts have repeatedly rejected these initiatives.

Trump has consistently advanced unsubstantiated allegations of widespread mail voting fraud, even as he acknowledged that restricting the method could benefit his party politically.

The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by over 20 Democratic state attorneys general challenging a March executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to create state-specific citizen databases for voter eligibility verification and requiring the Postal Service to cross-reference these lists.

In June, the Postal Service advanced the order by proposing regulations aligning with its demands. However, judges Gustavo A. Gelpí and Julie Rikelman, both appointed by Biden, upheld a prior injunction calling the measures “unlawful and void,” while Trump-appointed Judge Joshua D. Dunlap concurred in part, citing potential harm to legal voting despite procedural concerns.

The appeals court emphasized that the executive branch lacks constitutional authority over elections, focusing its ruling on whether states could challenge the order before its implementation. While the government argued the lawsuits were premature, the court noted that states had already incurred costs responding to the order, undermining the administration’s position.

Initially, a Washington federal judge declined to halt the order in May due to its non-implementation, but a Massachusetts federal judge later blocked it as the administration moved forward. The appeals court reinforced this stance, stating the government’s own actions invalidated its arguments.

Government attorneys signaled potential Supreme Court review of the ruling in recent filings.

Source link