Appeals court says Trump can't impose restrictions on mail-in voting for now - ABC News

What the appeals court did

Judges on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s emergency request to undo the district court’s injunction, leaving the lower court’s order intact for the plaintiff states while the appeal moves forward.

News outlets described the result as maintaining the block on the administration’s plan to prepare federal citizen lists and to condition mail‑ballot delivery on those lists in the named states. The appeals panel’s action is procedural and not a final ruling on the merits; it preserves the status quo established by the district court’s June ruling while the parties litigate the appeal, and other district courts and judges around the country have already rejected or enjoined related parts of the same executive order in separate cases.

Which parts of the order were affected and why

District courts that have considered the executive order focused on several central provisions: requirements directing federal agencies to compile state‑specific “citizenship” or eligibility lists from federal data; instructions to the Postal Service to create and rely on a participation list for mail‑in ballots and to withhold delivery to voters not on that list; and conditions on federal funding tied to states’ adoption of particular ballot‑receipt rules.

In her June 25 opinion, Judge Indira Talwani found that, at least as to the plaintiff states, those directives exceeded the president’s authority and intruded on states’ responsibility for administering elections. Different courts have resolved different legal claims — separation‑of‑powers, statutory preemption, the Postal Service’s statutory duties and settlement obligations, and federalism concerns — and reporters and court trackers note that the precise scope of injunctive relief varies by case. The appeals panel’s short‑term ruling did not resolve every open legal question about which provisions are blocked or whether relief is limited to the states that sued.

Reactions and next steps

State attorneys general and voting‑rights groups that sued hailed the appeals court action as a critical protection for state election systems ahead of the 2026 midterms. The Justice Department said it was reviewing options and has a history of moving quickly to seek emergency review in the Supreme Court in high‑stakes election disputes.

Legal observers say the likely next steps include continued briefing and argument at the First Circuit, possible motions for rehearing en banc, and — depending on how the appellate proceedings unfold and the timing relative to election deadlines — an emergency application to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, election officials in affected states are expected to continue operating under existing law and guidance unless and until a higher court changes the picture.

What voters and election officials should watch

Look for the First Circuit’s written order or opinion (if one is issued) to learn the court’s legal reasoning and the exact scope of its relief; primary documents — the district courts’ written opinions and any formal appeals‑court orders — will show which provisions remain enjoined, the geographic reach of the orders and the legal standards the courts applied. Also watch for new filings or public statements from the Justice Department, the White House, plaintiff attorneys and state election officials, which will clarify whether the government seeks immediate Supreme Court review, narrows its implementation plans, or otherwise alters its litigation posture.