The Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court to stay a lower court ruling that enjoined the Administration from enforcing portions of President Trump’s executive order on elections.
If the Court grants a stay, the Administration could move forward in implementing President Trump’s EO. If it doesn’t, the Administration can only enforce the EO in states that weren’t a party to the lawsuit.
The case arose when 23 states and the District of Columbia challenged President Trump’s March 31, 2026, EO on elections. The plaintiffs argued that the EO’s Sections 2, 3, and 5 exceeded the President’s authority, violated the Elections and Electors Clauses, and violated the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle.
Section 2 of the EO directs DHS to compile a list of U.S. citizens and transmit the list to the states. It also provides for investigation and prosecution of state officials who issue or distribute ballots to individuals not eligible to vote. Section 3 directs the U.S. Postal Service to issue regulations governing the design of envelopes for mail-in voting and requiring all ballot mail to be mailed in such envelopes. Section 5 orders the Attorney General and department heads “to deter and address noncompliance” by “state and local election officials” and “public or private entities engaged in” ballot printing or distribution.
The district court ruled for the plaintiffs. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing, that their case was ripe for review, and that Sections 2 and 3 are “ultra vires and violate the separation of powers.” The court issued an injunction, halting enforcement for the upcoming primaries and general election (though not later elections) in the plaintiff states (though not in non-plaintiff states).
The Trump Administration sought a stay of the injunction pending appeal with the Second Circuit, arguing that the plaintiff states lacked standing and that the case wasn’t ripe for judicial review. The Second Circuit on Friday denied a stay.
Then today the Administration sought a stay in the Supreme Court, again arguing that the plaintiff states lack standing and that the case isn’t ripe for judicial review.
If the Court grants a stay, the Administration can go ahead with its plans to generate a list of U.S. citizens and to impose Postal Service requirements on mail-in voting in the plaintiff states. If the Court denies a stay, the Administration can’t.
Either way, the merits aren’t going before the Court, at least as the Administration has briefed the case so far. (The Administration didn’t appeal the merits to the Second Circuit, either, and that court didn’t rule on the merits.) That’s probably because the Administration understands the weaknesses in its positions on the merits: The President has no statutory authority for his EO; the Elections Clause and the Electors Clause give initial responsibility to the states to govern elections for federal office, subject to congressional action (which hasn’t happened in this area); and the EO may impose requirements on the states in violation of the anti-commandeering principle.
The Administration’s theories on standing and ripeness, if accepted, could make it hard or impossible for plaintiffs to challenge the EO until close to or even after the upcoming elections, at which point even a successful challenge would come too late.
Leave a Reply