President Donald Trump exceeded his constitutional authority when he issued an executive order seeking to restrict mail-in voting and create a federal list of eligible voters, attorneys for Democratic organizations and civil rights groups told a federal judge in Washington on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, whom Trump nominated to the bench, heard arguments on a preliminary injunction but did not rule from the bench.
The case is one of multiple lawsuits filed to challenge the president’s March 31 executive order, his second related to elections since regaining the White House. The plaintiffs argue the Constitution assigns election administration to states and Congress, not the presidency.
“I understand the time pressure here,” Nichols said during the hearing, acknowledging that primary elections are underway and officials are preparing for the fall midterm elections.
The contested order calls on the Department of Homeland Security to compile a list of adults the federal government has purportedly confirmed to be U.S. citizens, and to share that list with each state at least 60 days before every federal election. The order would also bar the U.S. Postal Service from sending absentee ballots to people who do not appear on a state’s approved voter list.
“There isn’t a way to lawfully compile it,” Lalitha Madduri, an attorney representing Democratic Party plaintiffs, told the court.
Danielle Lang, who represents the League of United Latin American Citizens, said the order is aimed at creating “the maximum amount of chaos and confusion” for local election officials, adding: “They need clear direction.”
Orion Nevers, an attorney for the NAACP, said the administration’s actions are “harming our clients every day in the middle of an election season.”
The Justice Department asked Nichols to dismiss the claims. Stephen Pezzi, a department attorney, characterized the litigation as “shadowboxing” because no voter list has yet been compiled. “It’s a little hard to address these questions in the abstract,” Pezzi said. When Nichols questioned why disseminating such a list to states would be lawful, Pezzi replied, “I think it would be the plaintiffs’ burden to explain why it’s unlawful. I don’t mean to be cute with that answer.”
Trump’s executive order is his second attempt to overhaul federal election procedures by executive action. His earlier directive requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote was largely halted by multiple federal judges who found it similarly exceeded presidential authority. The new order came after a voting bill the president supported stalled in Congress.
Trump has, since before his 2020 election loss, falsely claimed that mail-in voting is rife with fraud — allegations that were repeatedly debunked by audits and reviews, including some conducted by Republican officials. His baseless claims about the 2020 vote were central to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Since returning to office, Trump has stated he wants Republicans to “take over” elections in Democratic areas and has launched investigations of the 2020 election.
Democrats are more likely than Republicans to vote by mail, and the executive order’s critics contend it is designed to give Trump and his party a partisan advantage. The plaintiffs’ attorneys argued the order illegally coerces states into limiting voter registration and ballot access under threat of federal intervention.
Nichols gave no clear indication of how he will rule. The decision, when it comes, will shape the legal landscape for mail-in voting rules just months before the midterm elections.