Trump Mail-In Voting Executive Order Challenge (DSCC)

A pro-voting lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order attacking mail-in voting.

Background 

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, other Democratic organizations, and Senate and House Democratic  leaders, filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order attacking access to mail-in voting. Plaintiffs assert that in response to Congress’ failure to pass the SAVE Act, Trump signed the unlawful order to “impose radical changes” to dramatically restrict Americans’ ability to vote by mail. The order directs agencies “to amass a national citizenship registry,” created in violation of federal privacy laws.

Plaintiffs emphasize that the U.S. Constitution squarely places election authority “in the hands of the Legislature rather than the Executive,” and that Congress has repeatedly sanctioned states to allow voting by mail. The lawsuit argues the president’s order exceeds the scope of his authority, and violates constitutional separation of powers, the First and Fifth amendments, the Voting Rights Act, the U.S. Postal Service’s statutory authority, and the Administrative Procedures Act. Plaintiffs seek to block the executive order.

Why It Matters

This is Trump’s second election-related executive order attempting to take control of federal elections and disenfranchise voters. Courts have consistently ruled that only Congress and the states – not the president – have authority over elections. Despite this, Trump has expressed repeated opposition to  mail-in voting, saying at the order signing, “Cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible. Democrats want to use it for cheating.”. These actions, the lawsuit alleges, represent “the President’s unlawful attempts to upturn the electoral playing field in his own favor and against his political rivals.”

Latest Updates:

• June 1, 2026: DSCC plaintiffs appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
• May 28, 2026: A federal judge denied plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, citing lack of standing.
• May 14, 2026: The court will hold a hearing on plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction.
• May 1, 2026: Defendants filed their motion to dismiss and opposition to plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction. Red state filed their opposition to plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction.
• Apr. 30, 2026: The court granted red states’ motion to intervene as defendants.
• Apr. 28, 2026: Plaintiffs asked the court to set a hearing for their motion for a preliminary injunction the week of May 11.
• Apr. 27, 2026: Red states filed their reply in support of their motion to intervene as defendants.
• Apr. 24, 2026: The DOJ filed their opposition to red states’ motion to intervene as defendants. DSCC, LULAC, and NAACP plaintiffs also their opposition to such intervention.
• Apr. 20, 2026: Red states filed a motion to intervene as defendants.
• Apr. 17, 2026: DSCC, LULAC and NAACP plaintiffs filed their briefs in support of their motion for preliminary injunction.
• Apr. 12, 2026: The court denied LULAC plaintiffs’ motion to expedite discovery.
• Apr. 10, 2026: DSCC, LULAC, and NAACP plaintiffs filed their motions for a preliminary injunction to block the executive order. LULAC plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their motion to expedite discovery.
• Apr. 9, 2026: A new judge has been assigned. The judge consolidated this case with LULAC and NAACP’s cases, and has set a briefing schedule for plaintiffs’ forthcoming motions for preliminary injunction. Defendants filed their opposition to LULAC plaintiffs’ motion to expedite discovery.
• Apr. 8, 2026: The court granted DOJ’s request for a new judge to be assigned to the case. Parties filed a joint statement in favor of consolidating this case with LULAC and NAACP’s cases. LULAC plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite discovery.
• Apr. 6, 2026: The court ordered parties to address: 1) whether this case should be consolidated with other cases challenging Trump’s second executive order, and 2) whether this case shares “common issues of fact” with previously consolidated cases challenging Trump’s first executive order on voting last year.
• Apr. 1, 2026: Plaintiffs filed their complaint and a notice with the court that this case shares “common issues of fact” with previous cases challenging Trump’s first executive order on voting last year.