Federal Judge Finds Disenfranchisement is ‘Plausibly Likely and Imminent’ Due to Executive Order Restricting Mail Voting

U.S. District Court in Massachusetts rules that voting rights group have standing and valid constitutional claims to move forward with a challenge to the executive order

July 22, 2026 3:30 pm

Media Contact

Mark Sheridan, media@aclum.org

BOSTON – A U.S. District Court in Massachusetts ruled today that nonpartisan voting rights groups have standing and valid constitutional and statutory claims to move forward with a challenge to President Trump’s executive order (EO) restricting mail-in voting.

The court reiterated earlier holdings that parts of the executive order are unconstitutional because they improperly insert the executive branch into elections, interfering with the authority of states and Congress. Among other provisions, the executive order unlawfully directs the United States Postal Service (USPS) to refuse to transmit eligible voters’ ballots.

The executive order has sown confusion and fear and has significantly disrupted the core of the voting rights groups’ work — to educate voters and prepare them to cast ballots. The court acknowledged this burden and added that the groups’ members “will plausibly be harmed by the EO’s implementation because those members include individuals who must rely on mail voting as they live overseas, reside out of state, have disabilities, or are unable to travel to the polls and vote in person.” The court found it “plausibly likely and imminent” that the groups’ members would be disenfranchised in the upcoming election due to the executive order.

The ruling denied, in large part, the federal government and intervenor defendants’ motions to dismiss. That allows the case to move forward, including the groups’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction to block portions of the executive order. A hearing on that motion has been scheduled for Aug. 7, 2026.

The lawsuit was filed by the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, the League of Women Voters, Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO), U.S. Vote Foundation, OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates (OCA), and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.

They are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, Legal Defense Fund (LDF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC (Advancing Justice – AAJC), and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

The plaintiffs and their legal counsel issued the following statement:

“With the November election around the corner, the voting rights groups who filed this lawsuit should be deeply immersed in the vital work of ensuring that their members — and all eligible voters — are prepared to cast their ballots. Instead, the groups have had to limit their voter outreach and spend considerable time and money on revising materials and counseling members who are confused and fearful about the executive order’s impact on their right to vote.

“We are pleased that the court recognized the disruption and chaos caused by the executive order and ruled that our clients’ claims can move forward. We are committed to fighting this unconstitutional and unlawful executive order and to protecting the right to vote, including the ability to vote by mail.”

Related Content

Court Case
Jul 13, 2026
Placeholder image
  • Voting Rights

League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump

On March 31, 2026, President Trump issued a sweeping Executive Order titled "Ensuring Citizen Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections," seeking once again to seize control of election administration from Congress and the states. The Order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of citizens from federal databases — including Social Security Administration records and immigration data — and transmit those lists to states before every federal election. It then directs USPS to refuse to deliver mail-in or absentee ballots from any voter who does not appear on a federally created enrollment list. It also threatens states with non-delivery of their voters' ballots unless those states submit lists of eligible mail voters to USPS at least 60 days before each election. If implemented, the Order would threaten the ability of millions of eligible citizens to cast their ballots, particularly military members, overseas citizens, the elderly, recently naturalized citizens, and voters with disabilities who rely on mail voting. The Constitution gives Congress and the states — not the President — the power to regulate elections. Despite this, President Trump's March 31, 2026 Executive Order attempts to impose a sweeping new federal regime over mail-in and absentee voting nationwide. This Executive Order is President Trump's second attempt to seize control of federal elections by executive fiat, issued despite injunctions from three separate federal courts blocking a previous 2025 Executive Order on similar grounds. Plaintiffs in this case bring six claims: the Order violates the constitutional separation of powers; it is ultra vires because it commandeers USPS in violation of Congress's postal statutes; it violates the Tenth Amendment and principles of federalism by coercing states to alter their election laws; it unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote; it violates Section 11(a) of the Voting Rights Act by directing USPS to refuse to deliver lawful ballots to eligible voters; and it violates the Privacy Act by requiring the rushed, non-consensual compilation and dissemination of inaccurate personal data about millions of Americans without the required public notice and comment.