A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has temporarily blocked the U.S. Postal Service from carrying out key provisions of President Trump's executive order targeting mail-in voting, ruling that the directive likely exceeds presidential authority and could disrupt election procedures across multiple states.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued the preliminary injunction late Wednesday, halting USPS from implementing portions of the March executive order that would have required the agency to collect and share voter identification data with federal election authorities. The ruling marks the first successful legal challenge to the order, which Trump signed as part of a broader push to tighten mail-in ballot security.
Trump's executive order, signed in March 2025, directed the Postal Service to verify the identity of individuals mailing in ballots and to share that data with the Election Assistance Commission and the Department of Justice. The order also instructed USPS to develop tracking protocols for mail-in ballots and to flag discrepancies between sender information and voter registration records.
The administration framed the order as a fraud-prevention measure. Trump said at the signing that mail-in voting "has been a disaster for election integrity" and that the Postal Service should play a role in "making sure every ballot is real and every voter is who they say they are."
Critics, including a coalition of state attorneys general and voting-rights organizations, argued the order effectively conscripted a federal agency into election administration, a role historically reserved for state and local governments. They filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia within days of the signing, as Fox News reported.
Kollar-Kotelly, a Clinton appointee who has served on the D.C. district court since 1997, found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claim that the executive order violates the Elections Clause of the Constitution. That clause grants state legislatures primary authority over the "times, places and manner" of federal elections, with Congress holding a secondary regulatory role.
The judge wrote that the order "attempts to insert the executive branch into the mechanics of ballot handling in a manner that neither Congress nor state legislatures have authorized." She noted that no federal statute grants the president or the Postal Service authority to collect voter identification information or to cross-reference mailing data with voter rolls.
"The executive order directs a federal agency to perform functions that Congress has not assigned to it and that the Constitution reserves to the states, raising serious structural concerns that weigh heavily in favor of injunctive relief."
Kollar-Kotelly also addressed the administration's argument that the president's authority over the Postal Service, as an executive-branch agency, gave him broad latitude to direct its operations. She rejected that reasoning, writing that USPS's status as an independent establishment under the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 limits direct presidential control over its day-to-day functions.
The ruling does not strike down the executive order permanently. It freezes enforcement while the case proceeds, with a full hearing on the merits expected later this summer. The court found that irreparable harm would result if USPS began collecting voter data before the legal questions were resolved, particularly with primary elections approaching in several states.
The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of 18 state attorneys general, all Democrats, joined by the League of Women Voters and several individual voters. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, who helped lead the coalition, called the ruling "a victory for every voter who relies on the mail to cast their ballot."
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said the executive order "would have turned mail carriers into election police" and argued that the Postal Service lacks the infrastructure and legal authority to verify voter identities. Courts have increasingly found themselves at the center of election disputes heading into 2026, a pattern visible in cases ranging from a recent Alaska Supreme Court order placing a candidate on a Senate primary ballot to congressional redistricting fights in multiple states.
The Department of Justice, representing the administration, argued that the president has inherent authority to direct executive-branch agencies to combat fraud and that the order did not regulate elections but merely improved mail security. DOJ spokesperson Chad Gilmartin said the government "disagrees with the court's analysis and is reviewing its options," signaling a likely appeal.
Had the executive order taken effect, USPS would have been required to scan and log identifying information from the exterior of ballot envelopes, including names, return addresses, and any barcodes or tracking numbers applied by election officials. That data would then flow to the Election Assistance Commission, which would cross-reference it against the National Voter Registration Act database.
Discrepancies, such as a ballot mailed from an address that does not match the voter's registration, would have been flagged and forwarded to the Justice Department's Election Crimes Branch for potential investigation. The order set a 90-day implementation timeline, which would have placed the system in operation before several states hold primary elections in August and September.
Postal workers' unions had also raised concerns. The American Postal Workers Union issued a statement opposing the order, saying it would "fundamentally change the role of letter carriers" and create "an unfunded mandate that diverts resources from mail delivery." The Supreme Court itself has waded into mail-ballot timing disputes, including a recent 5-4 ruling upholding state laws that count mail ballots arriving after Election Day.
The executive order cited what it called "documented vulnerabilities" in mail-in voting, pointing to cases of ballot harvesting, duplicate voting, and ballots cast in the names of deceased individuals. The order referenced a 2005 bipartisan commission co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, which warned that absentee ballots "remain the largest source of potential voter fraud."
Trump has long criticized mail-in voting, arguing that the expansion of mail balloting during the COVID-19 pandemic created opportunities for fraud that have never been fully addressed. Supporters of the executive order, including several Republican members of Congress, praised the measure as a common-sense step.
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said the order reflected "the basic principle that we should know who is voting" and called the legal challenge "an attempt to preserve a system that prioritizes convenience over security." Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio said the injunction was "another example of an activist judge substituting her policy preferences for the president's lawful authority."
The legal fight over this executive order arrives during a period of intense judicial activity around election rules. Democrats filed the underlying federal lawsuit shortly after the order was signed, and similar clashes over judicial involvement in election mechanics have played out in redistricting and candidate-qualification disputes nationwide.
The case raises a question that courts have not squarely addressed: whether a president can direct the Postal Service to perform election-related functions without congressional authorization. Previous disputes over USPS and elections have focused on mail delivery speed and ballot deadlines, not on data collection or voter verification.
Legal scholars are divided. Jonathan Adler, a constitutional law professor at Case Western Reserve University, told reporters that the order "pushes the boundaries of executive power in an area where the Constitution is quite specific about who gets to set the rules." He noted that even if the president has broad authority over USPS operations, "using that authority to regulate the election process is a different matter entirely."
John Yoo, a former Justice Department official and professor at UC Berkeley, took the opposite view, arguing that the president "has every right to ensure that federal agencies are not facilitating fraud" and that the order "does not regulate elections but simply improves the security of the mail system."
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will likely hear the case on an expedited basis if the administration appeals, given the approaching election calendar. Kollar-Kotelly's order remains in effect until the court rules on the merits or a higher court intervenes. Federal judges across the country have played an outsized role in shaping election outcomes in recent months, from the Supreme Court's emergency order greenlighting Alabama's contested congressional map to recusal disputes in election-related criminal cases.
The preliminary injunction bars USPS from taking any steps to implement the executive order's voter-data provisions while the case is pending. The Postal Service issued a brief statement saying it "will comply with the court's order" and referred further questions to the Department of Justice.
The state attorneys general coalition has asked the court to set an expedited briefing schedule, arguing that any delay could create confusion if the injunction is later reversed close to primary election dates. The DOJ has 30 days to appeal or to seek a stay from the D.C. Circuit.
For now, mail-in ballots will continue to be handled under existing state and local procedures, with no federal data-collection layer. The question of whether a president can reshape how ballots move through the mail system remains open, and the answer will likely come from an appellate court operating under significant time pressure.
The Constitution draws clear lines about who runs elections. Whether those lines hold depends on judges willing to enforce them, no matter which direction the political winds blow.
