A federal judge on Thursday upheld President Trump's March executive order imposing stricter rules on mail-in ballots, dealing a blow to Democratic legal challenges that argued the measure infringes on voting rights and state election authority.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ruled that the lawsuit—filed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the NAACP, and the League of United Latin American Citizens—lacks a strong likelihood of success on its merits, describing the plaintiffs' arguments as largely speculative.
The executive order directs the federal government to compile a list of eligible voters using available citizenship data and instructs the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to individuals listed on each state's approved voter rolls. Democrats contended this violates the Privacy Act by creating a federal inventory of citizens over 18, effectively establishing a voter eligibility database even if the information is never shared with states.
Nichols, however, dismissed that claim, noting that the alleged harm would only arise if a purely internal federal list were created. “But Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that such action—that is, the sharing of name, age, and residence information between and among government agencies, if already known to the federal government—would cause a harm sufficient” to justify the lawsuit, he wrote in his ruling.
The judge also rejected the argument that Democratic voters face a disproportionate risk of being erroneously excluded from state citizenship lists compared to Republican voters. He characterized the claimed injury as resting “on a highly attenuated chain of possibilities.”
The ruling arrives as Trump and Republicans push to maintain control of both chambers of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections. The president has also urged lawmakers to advance the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. Notably, Trump himself voted by mail in a Florida special election earlier this year.
Next week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, is scheduled to hear arguments in a separate case brought by Democratic states challenging the same executive order in Boston, according to Reuters.
The legal battle comes amid broader Republican efforts to tighten voting rules, with the president's executive order seen as a key part of that agenda. Critics, including the plaintiffs, argue the measure undermines states' constitutional authority over elections and could suppress voter turnout.
For context, Trump's moves on election integrity have been accompanied by other administration actions, including the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund that has drawn criticism from opponents. Meanwhile, House Democrats have formed a new anti-corruption caucus targeting Trump's ethics record, signaling ongoing partisan friction over governance and accountability.
