Number 26 in our series of occasional roundups on election law and policy, this time focusing on a number of new court rulings tending to impede the Trump administration’s attempts to intervene in the fall elections:
- A federal judge in Boston has ruled that President Trump does not have the constitutional power to order changes to mail-in balloting, including his scheme to use the US Postal Service (USPS) to conscript states’ participation [Dion Nissenbaum, Votebeat; State of California v. Trump; earlier, a different federal judge had ruled a challenge not yet ripe]. The day before the new ruling, the head of USPS confirmed before Congress that the plan was to refuse to carry mail ballots in states that did not hand over sensitive voter information to the administration [Finya Swai, The Hill; Emilio Perez Ibarguen, Politico].
- A second federal judge in Boston has converted into a permanent injunction a temporary injunction against various elements of the president’s executive order [Julie Carr Smyth and Michael Casey, Associated Press; California v. Trump memorandum and order].
- “A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from creating a database of millions of Americans’ private information—including Social Security numbers and citizenship status—saying the administration has fed knowingly inaccurate data to states that are now ‘actively’ and ‘haphazardly’ purging purported non-citizens from voter rolls” [Kyle Cheney, Politico; Dion Nissenbaum and Natalia Contreras, Votebeat; League of Women Voters v. DHS].
- And on yet another track, the administration is generally flopping before judges in its suits demanding that individual states turn over their voter files [Wisconsin, Arizona, Maryland, etc., but note a dissent in the Sixth Circuit’s opinion upholding such a dismissal as to Michigan].
- The so-called “Purcell principle” on timing of election-related injunctions may fit reasonably into an account of courts’ equitable powers, but judges seeking to do equity should be vigilant against opportunistic moves from state actors as well as from litigants [Samuel Bray, Divided Argument].
- Cato colleague Thomas Berry and I discuss “Louisiana v. Callais and the Future of the Voting Rights Act” on the Cato podcast. I was a recent guest on Linda Chavez’s podcast on Garry Kasparov’s Substack The Next Move, discussing gerrymandering, and on Mary Kay Elloian’s podcast “The Legal Edition,” discussing a wide range of election matters. And don’t miss Stephen Richer’s podcast on election issues at The Dispatch with Steve Hayes and Mike Warren.
- From a video back in April: “Can and Will Courts Ensure Free and Fair Elections in 2026?” [UCLA Law via Election Law Blog with panelists Rick Hasen, Lori Ringhand, Miriam Siefter, and Steve Vladeck].
